October 20, 2012
— Open Blogger The creator of Dilbert, Scott Adams, endorsed Romney last week. You can read the endorsement here.
An excerpt:
So while I don't agree with Romney's positions on most topics, I'm endorsing him for president starting today. I think we need to set a minimum standard for presidential behavior, and jailing American citizens for political gain simply has to be a firing offense no matter how awesome you might be in other ways.
Please note the updates to that post. They are hilarious. He takes down just about everyone that links to the story for taking his endorsement completely out of context. He also gets some good jabs in at the Daily Kos, Gawker, Politico, and Mediaite.
Scott decided to write a follow up post to address some of the criticisms he was receiving. You can read that entire entry here. As with the first one, I highly recommend you read the entire thing. Don't depend on me for context. Although, I'd like to excerpt two gems from this post.
First, Scott's very practical when it comes to politicians and what they need to do to get elected.
Romney knows that the electorate is full of idiots and he needs to be a gigantic liar to win their votes. I totally get that. The funniest part is his budget plan that he promises to describe in detail after he gets elected. Dumb people see this as "He has an awesome fiscal plan!" Democrats see it as "He's a liar with no plan!" I see it as "You know I'm a brilliant and experienced turnaround guy. I know how to do this sort of thing. And if I give details now it just paints a target on my back. So chill."
Second, Scott addresses critics who claim he's only endorsing Romney to enrich himself.
So no, I don't see a scenario in which someday I am flying my diamond-encrusted helicopter over the rioting masses of starvation-crazed ex-middle-classers and thinking to myself that things worked out well for me. I don't see the option of living the good life at the expense of the 99%. That's not even a thing. I stopped working to satisfy my personal cravings years ago. Everything I produce and everything I earn these days is for the benefit of others. So I don't mind higher taxes on the rich if it makes sense for the country. With the exception of M.C. Hammer, the rich get richer no matter what the tax rates are. I'm afraid that won't change regardless of who gets elected.
Ace mentioned this phenomenon the other day. That centrist, libertarians, democrats and people who aren't right leaning political hacks are openly pointing out that Obama isn't doing a very good job. Each group has their own reasons, in Scott's case it has to do with the unpresidential* actions of Barack Obama arresting quasi-legal marijuana users for political gain.
I write quasi-legal because in some states marijuana use for medical reasons is legal. Obviously this contradicts federal law, but Scott rightly points out that Obama's sudden decision to enforce those laws is political given that the resources of the federal government are limited. Obama could easily let this slide and is choosing not to do so for some political reason. Scott points out that Obama hasn't given a reason, so it is fair to assume it is for political gain.
Be sure to read both his posts for yourself.
Posted by: Open Blogger at
09:04 AM
| Comments (339)
Post contains 589 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: rickl at October 20, 2012 09:08 AM (sdi6R)
I think the preference cascade is turning into Devil Falls (IYKWIMAITYD).
BTW, from the side bar on the EPA:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been sued in federal court for allegedly conducting illegal experiments on human beings.
I would call them the Evil Pollution Agency, but there is a better name for other people so callous: Nazis. Fucking Nazis.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 20, 2012 09:09 AM (PHb2k)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 20, 2012 09:10 AM (TMB3S)
3 Is it? Spell check is telling me it isn't.
Spell check was programmed by flawed humanoids with limited vocabularies.
It is frequently wrong.
Posted by: wheatie at October 20, 2012 09:12 AM (ipkPX)
Posted by: Truman North at October 20, 2012 09:12 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: The Man from Athens at October 20, 2012 09:13 AM (RXQ2T)
Posted by: Greg Telling You So Why Romney Loses Wolf at October 20, 2012 09:14 AM (eFU14)
Obama's ad: "Mitt Romney isn't one of us."
Teh funny, coming from the Marxist.
Posted by: panzernashorn at October 20, 2012 09:14 AM (BAnPT)
Posted by: Portnoy at October 20, 2012 09:15 AM (A5Abh)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 20, 2012 09:15 AM (+tqYo)
Posted by: California red at October 20, 2012 09:16 AM (DXTKe)
11 I never really liked the strip; too juvenile for my taste.
It's generally a mockery of the juvenile nature of office politics.
And also the idiocy that goes into 'team decision-making'.
Posted by: wheatie at October 20, 2012 09:16 AM (ipkPX)
Posted by: TD, one of the proud 53% at October 20, 2012 09:17 AM (+uFux)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 20, 2012 09:17 AM (+tqYo)
Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at October 20, 2012 09:17 AM (vouc9)
Posted by: Leigh at October 20, 2012 09:18 AM (ddcrm)
Posted by: Daryl Herbert at October 20, 2012 09:18 AM (MuE3v)
Posted by: mare at October 20, 2012 09:19 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: mallfly at October 20, 2012 09:20 AM (bJm7W)
Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at October 20, 2012 09:20 AM (vouc9)
And then, besides jailing people for political gain, we have people being KILLED for political gain, like the 300 dead Mexican citizens and the 4 dead in Libya. And let's not forget about Muslims killed in riots, like in the Cairo uprising. And Ghadaffi, who was killed just to shut him up. (Still wondering who got all of his gold.)
Posted by: Miss Marple at October 20, 2012 09:21 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: c. sense at October 20, 2012 09:22 AM (x9s9/)
These arrests have to be for the benefit of social-conservatives up in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Except that I don't think they give much of a shit about what Californians smoke, either.
I can only conclude that Barky is stupid.
Posted by: boulder hobo at October 20, 2012 09:23 AM (QTHTd)
Go ahead and tell him to change his vote because you don't like his reasoning.
Who needs more Romney voters anyhow...
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at October 20, 2012 09:23 AM (qrpxS)
Whether you think it is fair or not, moral or amoral, the simple fact is that we don't have enough money to imprison or prosecute pot heads.
I tend to fall on the side of decriminalization because I don't give a damn about what people do with their own bodies as long as it doesn't impinge on my life or rights.
So while I don't feel strongly or have the desire to fight the political fight for people to get high. I do feel strongly about our budget and spending.
We have limited resources and need to decide where we use those resources. I don't think it's a good investment to imprison someone for a year at the cost of 30-50,000 per year(depending on the state) because they smoked or sold weed.
Even people who hate marijuana and think it should be illegal would (I think) agree that we having larger fish to fry when it comes to spending in this country.
I'd rather take the money we're using to imprison potheads and dealer to pay down the debt or deficit. Even if it is a drop in the bucket.
Posted by: Ben at October 20, 2012 09:24 AM (xTHBC)
Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at October 20, 2012 09:25 AM (DGIjM)
Posted by: mare at October 20, 2012 09:25 AM (A98Xu)
yeah, that's why we're at the HQ; for the classy jokes
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at October 20, 2012 09:25 AM (QTHTd)
supporting Obama other than jailing someone for a medical pot deal, just
sounds ridiculous to me.Posted by: mare
>>Go ahead and tell him to change his vote because you don't like his reasoning.
>>Who needs more Romney voters anyhow
Exactly. Some guy finds a personal reason to vote for our guy. Let's castigate him.
Posted by: Ben at October 20, 2012 09:25 AM (xTHBC)
Google it up, it is pretty fucking funny. NSFW. Language
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at October 20, 2012 09:26 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: Gary Trudeau at October 20, 2012 09:27 AM (OiC7K)
Posted by: Ben at October 20, 2012 09:27 AM (xTHBC)
Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at October 20, 2012 09:28 AM (DGIjM)
Posted by: Bill from Chappaqua at October 20, 2012 09:28 AM (MAhUT)
Posted by: t-bird at October 20, 2012 09:28 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Y-not at October 20, 2012 09:28 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Webster's at October 20, 2012 09:29 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Ed at October 20, 2012 09:29 AM (aUjDu)
Posted by: Bill from Chappaqua at October 20, 2012 09:29 AM (MAhUT)
No job, no way to pay bills but damn it!!!eleventy!!! we need pot and condoms/pills!
I guess whatever you need to tell yourself to vote for Romney is fine but really.....how petty.
Posted by: Tami at October 20, 2012 09:29 AM (X6akg)
***
In capitalism, people get rich because they provide goods and services others want. This accumulation of wealth is almost entirely due to the creation of wealth.
So to take a very simple example, a business owner with capital to invest finds and develops a rich ore deposit. He accumulates wealth as the ore is sold to other companies to process into industrial or consumer goods. This lowers the price of the ore world wide, as when supply goes up, costs go down.
His efforts marginally lower the prices of these secondary goods putting more money in consumers' pockets.
If he was restricted from developing this mine, either due to taxes or regulations, he would indeed not become richer, but neither would the world's consumers.
How on earth one can see this latter case as a good thing is mystifying.
Posted by: 18-1 at October 20, 2012 09:29 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: Undecided Voter at October 20, 2012 09:30 AM (NWLVJ)
Posted by: Ferb Fletcher at October 20, 2012 09:31 AM (hyP1j)
Posted by: boulder hobo at October 20, 2012 09:31 AM (QTHTd)
At this point, I don't care who votes for Romney or why. We have plenty of time for that after the election. Some people are single issue voters or simply vote for someone for silly reasons. It did take a little courage for the guy to come out as a Romney voter.
Posted by: Mo the Girl at October 20, 2012 09:31 AM (xH9as)
Posted by: mare at October 20, 2012 09:32 AM (A98Xu)
34 I too am for the decriminalization if not legalization of marijuana.
Me too, Ben.
The tax revenue would be major.
People pay a lot for that shit already...and would still pay that much, with at least half of that money going into tax coffers.
Pot isn't as addictive as alcohol, and has medicinal properties that could be better explored if it were legal.
Farmers would get a whole new Cash Crop, too...which would help the economy.
Right now, that money is going into the pockets of drug lords.
Posted by: wheatie at October 20, 2012 09:32 AM (ipkPX)
Posted by: Security, Without Murder at October 20, 2012 09:33 AM (AzwZn)
Posted by: rickl at October 20, 2012 09:33 AM (sdi6R)
Posted by: Ian S. at October 20, 2012 09:34 AM (rPA5/)
Posted by: Durka at October 20, 2012 09:34 AM (1crPI)
Posted by: elizabethe loves a brownie at October 20, 2012 09:34 AM (p6h9x)
Posted by: t-bird at October 20, 2012 09:35 AM (FcR7P)
Pissing off Hispanics and potheads = genius political instincts by these clowns
Posted by: The Q at October 20, 2012 09:35 AM (B/yDO)
Posted by: Y-not at October 20, 2012 09:35 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Tagg Romney (aka The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh) at October 20, 2012 09:36 AM (p4U6S)
Posted by: Ian S. at October 20, 2012 09:36 AM (rPA5/)
Posted by: OregonMuse at October 20, 2012 09:37 AM (gfPwZ)
Posted by: t-bird at October 20, 2012 09:37 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Dante at October 20, 2012 09:38 AM (NWLVJ)
I don't see it that way; I see it as his shrewdly picking a single issue that's likely to be persuasive to the kind of people who read Dilbert. (I've worked in software for 18+ years, I know the types. They all read Dilbert and they all get their news from Stewart and Colbert).
Posted by: Ian S. at October 20, 2012 09:38 AM (rPA5/)
Barky gave guns to the Drug Lords.
Cracking down on pot heads here...keeps the prices high.
It's another gift to the Drug Lords.
They probably donate to his campaign.
Posted by: wheatie at October 20, 2012 09:39 AM (ipkPX)
I don't even care about that. People die of alcohol related diseases every day. Same with nicotine. Marijuana might be safer, but even if it isn't, that matters very little to me.
I'm big on freedom. Not the generic buzz word, but actual freedom. And a big part of freedom is living with the consequences or benefits of your decisions.
If you exercise every day, eat right and live to 100, then good for you. If you drink everyday and die at 50, then good for you. Etc.
It isn't really any of my business what people do to their bodies and why. As long as my rights, or wallet, are not affected by it. If your driving high or drunk, then I care. If you're stealing to feed a habit, then I care. However, at that point you're being arrested for DUI or Theft, not just for the ownership of an illegal drug. I think it is the government duty to help protect us from each other, not to protect us from ourselves.
Same thing in business. If you make great decisions and make a fortune, good for you. If you make terrible ones and end up destitute, good for you. I don't really care either way. It is their lives to do with what they wish.
I'm obviously voting for Romney for a whole list of reasons, but I'm happy to have another person vote for Romney as well regardless of how they came to that decision.
Posted by: Ben at October 20, 2012 09:39 AM (xTHBC)
Posted by: Adam at October 20, 2012 09:40 AM (1//Wu)
Posted by: Ian S. at October 20, 2012 09:40 AM (rPA5/)
Posted by: Larry O'Donnell at October 20, 2012 09:41 AM (BuSM8)
Expecting Mitt Romney to deliver on the economic tightrope requires more than a willing suspension of disbelief. Consider his platform: balancing the Congressional Budget, lowering taxation on middle Americans, (spending taxes to construct?) the Canadian pipeline, and building up the Military with more spending while starting new wars in Syria and Iran are already on his plate. Consider also the "unexpected" events that always occur "unexpectedly" beyond.
Given that Romney won't confront the Federal Reserve's propensity to inflate a dollar (disappearing value), the baby steps promise of energy independence (for Mexico at least; and no promise to achieve energy independence during his administration 4-years) is as far as hope/agenda stipulates. Even there, Romney denounces hope as no strategy, thus negating whatever promises made. JOBS, Jobs, jobs?
"Manufacturing jobs are gone. Kiss them good-bye. They're never coming back." Romney '08
"Promise them anything. Just get their votes." Romney '08
ABO '12
Posted by: Eeyore is a Donkey after all at October 20, 2012 09:41 AM (BAnPT)
Posted by: tasker at October 20, 2012 09:41 AM (r2PLg)
I take votes for Obama for whatever reason. I am not at all too proud to take votes from people who decide based on looks, spouses' clothing choices, the number of sons, church attendance, or any other thing which gets us a vote.
Posted by: Miss Marple at October 20, 2012 09:42 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: Why Seamus matters!!! at October 20, 2012 09:42 AM (DGIjM)
OHIO UPDATE: From Univeristy of Dayton History Professor Larry Schweikart, who analyzes voting in OH, released his ANALYSIS so far of the 2012 Absentee Ballot pattern in OH.....right now the Dem have a 7 point advantage down from 15 points in 2008. He sees a major shift to the GOP....here is the money quote from Professior Schweikart today:
“In terms of absentee ballot requests, Republicans are hugely over-performing their 2008 levels, and the Democrats are underperforming compared to 2008, especially in the big counties,” he said. “What this means is that the polls are wrong. For weeks polls have shown an Obama lead ranging from 1 point to 8 points. But these absentee ballot requests reflect a huge enthusiasm gap among Democrats and Republicans, and I’m predicting a total shift from 2008.”
Again like CAC said PPP, Marist and SurveyUSA are clearly wrong in their counts but the counts have shifted to the GOP. On Election Day GOP always votes in greater numbers than Dems. Even McCain beat Obama on election day in Ohio back in 2008 but he was so far behind in early/absentee ballots that he could not overcome the amount. That is why so many of the Dem Pollsters are trying to play games with early return numbers now! If it is this close as the Professor says then indeed Obama is in trouble in Ohio.
Posted by: bluerose75 at October 20, 2012 09:43 AM (HDcKc)
His follow up, however, is basically saying Obama is a proven failure and Romney is somewhat of an unknown. So he's going with the unknown. Note this:
> I see it as "You know I'm a brilliant and experienced turnaround guy. I know how to do this sort of thing. And if I give details now it just paints a target on my back. So chill."
Not trying to defend him, although I do think his strip is funny. I'm sure there's a lot of douchey stuff that I don't know about him. Here, however, he's being the anti Bill Maher IMO.
Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at October 20, 2012 09:43 AM (vouc9)
Posted by: elizabethe loves a brownie at October 20, 2012 09:44 AM (p6h9x)
The wife's doctor (woman) prescribed pot for her arthritis (legal in Colorado). Also gave her Celebrex, but told her the pot was much safer on a daily basis and to use each as she saw fit. There is a ballot question on legalizing amounts under an ounce here. I heard that it leads slightly in the polls, 48-46. I'm guessing it won't quite pass, but don't care.
I like the taste and have a little with my wine sometimes. But only a little as I don't like getting very high on anything, including alcohol. Just a little of such things is plenty.
Posted by: Meremortal, likes the way it tastes at October 20, 2012 09:44 AM (1Y+hH)
Posted by: mediumheadboy at October 20, 2012 09:45 AM (aHR5E)
"I don't even care about that. People die of alcohol related diseases every day. Same with nicotine. Marijuana might be safer, but even if it isn't, that matters very little to me.
I'm big on freedom. Not the generic buzz word, but actual freedom. And a big part of freedom is living with the consequences or benefits of your decisions.
If you exercise every day, eat right and live to 100, then good for you. If you drink everyday and die at 50, then good for you. Etc.
It isn't really any of my business what people do to their bodies and why. As long as my rights, or wallet, are not affected by it. If your driving high or drunk, then I care. If you're stealing to feed a habit, then I care. However, at that point you're being arrested for DUI or Theft, not just for the ownership of an illegal drug. I think it is the government duty to help protect us from each other, not to protect us from ourselves."---------------- ----------------------------- Ben
Preach it brotha. The state's duty to protect with respect to controlled substances should extend to children, but not consenting, albeit possibly stupid or addicted adults. I'd rather have adult addicts get legal heroin than show up in my living room for my TV.
Which would be stupid, to be clear.
Posted by: Beagle at October 20, 2012 09:45 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: Durka at October 20, 2012 09:46 AM (1crPI)
Posted by: mediumheadboy at October 20, 2012 09:46 AM (aHR5E)
Posted by: Soona at October 20, 2012 09:46 AM (4cE8R)
Posted by: 53-47 Romney Makes Eeyore's Ass Sore at October 20, 2012 09:46 AM (AzwZn)
Posted by: davisbr at October 20, 2012 09:47 AM (n8/WV)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 09:47 AM (+XD7n)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 20, 2012 09:47 AM (+tqYo)
77....I'm obviously voting for Romney for a whole list of reasons, but I'm happy to have another person vote for Romney as well regardless of how they came to that decision.
This.
Yeah...Kudos to Scott Adams for his endorsement.
He didn't have to do this.
It took courage for him to speak out.
And I am Pro-Freedom, too, Ben.
Agree with you whole heartedly on that.
Prohibition didn't work for Alcohol...and resulted in crime in the streets.
It was a boon to organized crime.
The same has happened with marijuana.
Posted by: wheatie at October 20, 2012 09:47 AM (ipkPX)
Or put another way, he's doing Bill Maher's job, instead of whatever it is Maher thinks he's doing.
Posted by: Ian S. at October 20, 2012 09:48 AM (rPA5/)
"Tell all the people, 'This is what God says: Take your choice of life or death!"
Posted by: Jeremiah 21:8 at October 20, 2012 09:48 AM (BAnPT)
In a debate, Dem candidate Chris Murphy stated that he thought that life begins after birth.
Provisional congrats to Senator-elect McMahon.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 20, 2012 01:47 PM (+tqYo)
Saw that yesterday....what an idiot!
I think the big guy from NJ is coming here to CT Monday(?) to campaign for McMahon.
Posted by: Tami at October 20, 2012 09:49 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Ian S. at October 20, 2012 09:49 AM (rPA5/)
He must be under the same bus that ran over Cindy Sheehan.
Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at October 20, 2012 09:50 AM (vouc9)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 09:50 AM (+XD7n)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 20, 2012 09:50 AM (+tqYo)
Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at October 20, 2012 09:51 AM (vouc9)
95Habitual pot smokers are as worthless as the OWSer movement.
Usually correct.
I have three friends who are seld-made millionaires and have been habitual pot users for 40 years. One of them is wifey's private grower (legal). He retired at 60 and grows as his hobby.
I have several other friends who have lost good businessses due to alcohol, and one who screwed up big with prescription pain pills. Addictive personalities will have problems, the only quesiton is what their selection will be, pills, pot, alcohol, meth,
Posted by: Meremortal, likes the way it tastes at October 20, 2012 09:52 AM (1Y+hH)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 20, 2012 09:52 AM (+tqYo)
Read his second column, he lays out a pretty good litany for people who don't read conservative blogs/watch FNC that Obama is a SCOAMF and Romney is a savvy turnaround specialist.
Posted by: Ian S. at October 20, 2012 09:52 AM (rPA5/)
Posted by: 53-47 Romney Makes Eeyore's Ass Sore at October 20, 2012 09:52 AM (AzwZn)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 09:53 AM (+XD7n)
Posted by: The Man from Athens at October 20, 2012 09:53 AM (RXQ2T)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 20, 2012 09:54 AM (+tqYo)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 09:54 AM (jUytm)
<<I'm betting that a chameleon will stay a chameleon. That's his history. He adapts to whatever situation he's in. The alternative is to believe a candidate for President will do all the things he promises during the campaign. How has that worked out for you?>>
Posted by: Sgt. York at October 20, 2012 09:54 AM (4aDB/)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 09:54 AM (jUytm)
QUALIFIED applicants will be native born (notarized birth certificate required; must clear rigorous forensic analysis)
Must be age 35 or over
4 year degree from accredited institution. Advanced degree a plus.
Military experience not required but a plus.
Minimum 10 years legislative experience at federal level, or one or more terms as a state governor.
No history of drug use.
Must clear rigorous FBI background check.
Posted by: Jones in CO at October 20, 2012 09:55 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 09:55 AM (+XD7n)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 09:56 AM (jUytm)
So long as "our values as a country" are the integrity of our Constitution.
http://tinyurl.com/8onxp
As a matter of principled clarity, Congressman Walter Jones (NC) is asking Mitt Romney to campaign pledge BEFORE the election to uphold and adhere strictly to the US Constitution as POTUS.
Posted by: panzernashorn at October 20, 2012 09:56 AM (BAnPT)
must submit all tax records, college transcripts, military records, and financial documents upon request; subject to rigorous forensic analysis
Posted by: Jones in CO at October 20, 2012 09:57 AM (8sCoq)
The guy is a nut. This makes no sense at all.
I'd accuse him of making up some lame excuse for covering over the fact that he really just thinks Obama sucks, but I've talked to liberals at length many, many times, and their thinking is so muddled and confused you wouldn't believe it. And that's from *intelligent* people! I knew one guy who said he was backing Obama (last time) because he was all about fiscal solvency.
A couple of years ago he made some argument for going and registering as a Republican, that I can't even repeat because every bit of it was chaotic gibberish. He was still a big-time Obama supporter, and probably still is.
He thinks of himself as "normal", or "moderate". Maybe he thinks he is because he listens to NPR, and NPR has to be neutral because they're the govt.
Posted by: Optimizer at October 20, 2012 09:57 AM (R4cjW)
I think unpresidential became a word in early 1993.
Posted by: somebody else, not me at October 20, 2012 09:57 AM (nZvGM)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 09:58 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 09:58 AM (+XD7n)
Posted by: Jilted Reggie Love at October 20, 2012 09:59 AM (OiC7K)
Posted by: tasker at October 20, 2012 10:00 AM (r2PLg)
*Probably not a word.
According to Dictionary.com it is:
Heck, earlier versions of MS Word would happily let you know that you'd spelled misogyny wrong, but had no idea that misandry was a word (sigh).
Posted by: Russtovich at October 20, 2012 10:00 AM (lw8f3)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 10:00 AM (+XD7n)
Posted by: Optimizer at October 20, 2012 10:00 AM (R4cjW)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 10:00 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: 13times at October 20, 2012 10:01 AM (h6XiD)
Posted by: Mo the Girl at October 20, 2012 10:01 AM (vro/Y)
We have people on Twitter who are voting for Obama because they think he will ban tampons or hair weaves. And you are wanting to castigate THIS guy?
Take his vote, say thank you, and move on!
Posted by: Miss Marple at October 20, 2012 10:02 AM (GoIUi)
The brownie becomes soft and squishy and moist from the ice cream. It's like eating a treat within a treat.
this summer on a motorcycle trip thru Utah, I stopped at a Dairy Queen for a treat. I got something called an 'oreo brownie earthquake sundae' or whatever the hell they called it. Brownie and Oreo 'rubble' in a big pile if ice cream and hot fudge and whipped cream. It rendered me near comatose. It was frickin' amazing.
Posted by: Jones in CO at October 20, 2012 10:02 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at October 20, 2012 10:02 AM (vouc9)
Posted by: tasker at October 20, 2012 10:02 AM (r2PLg)
110....I have several other friends who have lost good businessses due to alcohol, and one who screwed up big with prescription pain pills. Addictive personalities will have problems, the only quesiton is what their selection will be, pills, pot, alcohol, meth,
Posted by: Meremortal, likes the way it tastes at October 20, 2012 01:52 PM (1Y+hH)
-------------
Yep.
There are lots of things that people can avail themselves of, if they want to engage in self destruction.
I've tried pot.
And while I don't use it now...if it were legal, I would enjoy using it to get an appetite.
I'm one of those people who has trouble gaining weight.
*ducks*
Posted by: wheatie at October 20, 2012 10:02 AM (ipkPX)
--
I'm not sure that wasn't being said during Nixon's Watergate scandal and threat of impeachment.
Language usage changed dramatically during the '70s.
..."unbecoming the office" was referenced back in the '60s
Posted by: Ronald Reagan at October 20, 2012 10:02 AM (BAnPT)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at October 20, 2012 10:02 AM (w1GPr)
Posted by: mare at October 20, 2012 10:03 AM (A98Xu)
119 Democrats believe life begins after contribution.
silly republican
we don't contribute! we take your stuff
duh
morning all
Posted by: navycopjoe has an iphone5 and you don't at October 20, 2012 10:03 AM (xsTuT)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 10:03 AM (jUytm)
They believe themselves to be libertarians (life begins at birth and let the weed grow, man!) but too many will then go all fascist when you suggest that they should permit others the same degree of liberty in the thirst of the vehicle they want to drive or the kind of food they want to eat.
It's the Niemoller situation all over again, as long as the authorities aren't stepping on MY toes I'll support their stepping on others'.
Posted by: JEM at October 20, 2012 10:03 AM (o+SC1)
There's also another group who thinks he is "Nick" Romney. I have told them that we were lucky Nick didn't get the nomination, and instead his nice brother Mitt is running.
Posted by: Miss Marple at October 20, 2012 10:03 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 10:04 AM (jUytm)
IowaHawk's 2006 dispatches from Zarkawi are stomach-hurting funny. In the one where the now dead Z talks about the bombing, he refers to his bodyguard Achmed, "also known as Ceiling Spackle".
Posted by: Meremortal, IH! at October 20, 2012 10:05 AM (1Y+hH)
For all of Obama's other policies, Adams has no complaint.
What a moron, in the bad way.
Posted by: Bart who lurks with SMOD 2012, master of his domain at October 20, 2012 10:05 AM (he2LC)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 01:56 PM (jUytm)
I prefer Cub Scouts.
Posted by: Barney Frank at October 20, 2012 10:05 AM (2b4yb)
Here's the lead post on a thread at Backstreets, the biggest Bruce Springsteen fan site on the Web, called "A Message to Bruce Sprinsgteen:"
Right now, the Obama DOJ is defending and expanding the wiretapping policies you publicly decried on the MAGIC tour.
Right now, it's accepted that Americans can be assassinated overseas without warrants or due process, a policy instituted by the man you helped elect.
Right now, we have a president (who you helped elect) who has Kill Lists. Would you say anything about them if they were Bush's?
Right now, the US is waging a drone warfare campaign that's killed (at least) hundreds of civilians and you've said dick about it.
Right now, the troops are home from Iraq under the exact same schedule laid out by the Bush administration -- presumably one you opposed, with "Bring 'Em Home."
Right now, the country of Iraq is in the hands of its own people who are (albeit imperfectly) finding their own way.
Right now, Saddam Hussein -- who gassed 100k Kurds while you were touring in support of human rights for Amnesty in 1988 -- is gone.
Right now, more troops have been killed in Afghanistan in the past two years than the preceding nine -- and you ignore it on stage.
Right now, you're getting ready to share the stage with the man who overturned Glass-Steagall.
Right now. you're getting ready to share the stage with the man who instituted the policy of rendition in the 1990s. LIvin' in the future?
Right now, you are sacrificing your principles for power. Again.
Right now, you've lost most of your moral credibility.
Posted by: rockmom at October 20, 2012 10:05 AM (qe2/V)
Posted by: Codec717 at October 20, 2012 10:05 AM (bMlVI)
Posted by: tasker at October 20, 2012 10:06 AM (r2PLg)
Read the 10th Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Very few powers are expressly delegated to the Federal government. You magnificent Morons know this. Who gives a shit about pot legislation? Really it's an end run around the federal anti pot law. A kid from my hometown has two huge hydroponic greenhouses in Colorado. It's a "medical supply" operation. Right. And I'm gonna grow a tail and run in the Kentucky Derby.
Pretty damn simple. The individual states should enact laws according to the wishes of the citizens. The Federal government has no business in California law or Michigan law. If you don't like the laws in Texas, move to Oregon.
I would love for AG Greg Abbott to sue the feds over White vs Texas, that bit of judicial mischief which lets the feds dictate to us.
Posted by: Mr. Dave in SPI at October 20, 2012 10:06 AM (OBDWE)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 10:06 AM (+XD7n)
I meant political $ contribution
oooooh
i'm on my first coffee so i'm kind of like a packers fan....so and dim
Posted by: navycopjoe has an iphone5 and you don't at October 20, 2012 10:07 AM (xsTuT)
/lol
Posted by: Jay walking with Leno at October 20, 2012 10:07 AM (BAnPT)
Posted by: Durka Durka at October 20, 2012 10:08 AM (1crPI)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at October 20, 2012 10:08 AM (w1GPr)
Posted by: Jeremiah 21:8 at October 20, 2012 01:48 PM (BAnPT)
Good one. Today I always think of Tebow's fave:
Phil 4:13
"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."
Posted by: Beagle at October 20, 2012 10:09 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: Adam at October 20, 2012 10:09 AM (/YJYi)
And another damn thing: I want Romney to nominate Thomas Sowell as a Supreme Court Justice.
Posted by: Mr. Dave in SPI at October 20, 2012 10:09 AM (OBDWE)
*ducks*
Posted by: wheatie at October 20, 2012 02:02 PM (ipkPX)
Heh. Yeah, that's probably it's worst danger. About those guys I was talking about: They never smoked during the work day, and they were all very hyper and driven individuals. They slowed down to what most consider normal when they smoked.
One of them, who has just sold his business and retired at 62, told me he went his doctor to have his glaucoma checked and the doctor was surprised at how much his reading had decreased. He told the doctor he smoked pot and the doctor, said, "It's safe, but it's illegal and I won't prescribe it."
Posted by: Meremortal, IH! at October 20, 2012 10:10 AM (1Y+hH)
Posted by: Barney Frank at October 20, 2012 02:05 PM (2b4yb)
Me too, although LeRoy's big dick isn't that bad.
Posted by: Coach Sandusky at October 20, 2012 10:10 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: Mr. Dave in SPI at October 20, 2012 02:09 PM (OBDWE)
Too Old.
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at October 20, 2012 10:10 AM (wR+pz)
This.
Posted by: OregonMuse at October 20, 2012 10:11 AM (gfPwZ)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 10:12 AM (+XD7n)
169 ha, you're aiming low there
i want him to choose my wife then AtC
crushing liberal dreams with heels and boots
Posted by: navycopjoe has an iphone5 and you don't at October 20, 2012 10:12 AM (xsTuT)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 10:12 AM (jUytm)
Yeah, that. 20-something / early-30s single males who are intelligent, are socially inept and whose jobs, face it, suck. They go home from the office and they just want to be amused. They also don't want to get into arguments.
So for them, the least resistance is in voting "left-libertarian", which means for Obama.
Scott Adams is making it okay for people like that to vote for the better candidate.
Posted by: boulder hobo at October 20, 2012 10:13 AM (QTHTd)
Posted by: the 14th amendment at October 20, 2012 02:08 PM (QTHTd)
Imposed by the victors and totally unconstitutional in its implementation.
Posted by: Mr. Dave in SPI at October 20, 2012 10:13 AM (OBDWE)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 10:14 AM (jUytm)
No, the tax revenue would be almost non-existent.
Cannabis is very easy to grow. Far more so than tobacco. I recall back in my youth kids I wouldn't trust to care for a cinder block for three hours were producing a fine crop.
The economy of Mendocino County, CA is so heavily dependent on the artificial scarcity of marijuana that be like an economic nuclear weapon attack against them if legalization were to occur.
Pot taxed at the same rates as tobacco would be less expensive than the current product but still pricey enough to make a backyard crop a simple choice for anyone who consumes the stuff.
Tax revenue fantasies aren't a good reason to legalize cannabis. The best single reason is that there is no good reason for it to be illegal in the first place. Scarcely anyone was aware of its existence when it was trumped up into a national menace. It is one of the silliest bits of political history you'll ever see, as if a farce like 'The Mouse Who Roared' was a documentary.
The easiest way to reduce marijuana consumption is to take away the cool factor derived from illegality. It'll be ugly for a few years but that is the price for decades of stupidity. It isn't like we'll have crazed pot smokers going on rampages. Recall one of the great oxymoron phrases: marijuana initiative.
Posted by: epobirs at October 20, 2012 10:15 AM (kcfmt)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2012 10:15 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 10:15 AM (jUytm)
142 serious response
if you want to gain weight i can give you a few quick points
i finally got back to my early navy weight...took about ten weeks
its easier than you think
Posted by: navycopjoe has an iphone5 and you don't at October 20, 2012 10:15 AM (xsTuT)
Posted by: Mr. Dave in SPI at October 20, 2012 10:17 AM (OBDWE)
Posted by: Dave S. at October 20, 2012 10:17 AM (UvR6d)
Posted by: Bill from Chappaqua at October 20, 2012 10:18 AM (MAhUT)
And we need to be concerned about that. AFTER he's elected.
We do not need another Bush 43, who talked a small-government game but for whom 'compassionate conservatism' meant selling out conservatism in favor of compassion at every turn.
Nor do we need another Nixon, the apotheosis of the big-government Republican, who saddled us with so many of the out-of-control alphabet agencies wreaking havoc on our country today.
Posted by: JEM at October 20, 2012 10:18 AM (o+SC1)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 10:18 AM (+XD7n)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 10:19 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: Beagle at October 20, 2012 10:19 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: The Man from Athens at October 20, 2012 10:19 AM (RXQ2T)
Posted by: teej says go K-State at October 20, 2012 10:20 AM (M7Cfv)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 10:20 AM (jUytm)
181 i disagree
in my experience, not opinion, weed is a gateway drug, it will lead to heavier drugs because the user will look for a stronger high
research has shown that the vast majotiry of herion users started with weed
want to stop the illegal weed trade? for idiots caught with possesion, fine the shit out of them but prison time? no
for the dealers...put them away for a loooooong time
or do it the italy way...dealing is a mandatory life sentence
Posted by: navycopjoe has an iphone5 and you don't at October 20, 2012 10:21 AM (xsTuT)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 10:21 AM (+XD7n)
Posted by: Scobface at October 20, 2012 10:22 AM (IoNBC)
Gremlins format my posts after I get done with them. I've tried adding spaces, extra paragraph breaks, even soaking in it.
Posted by: Beagle at October 20, 2012 10:22 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: Evilpens at October 20, 2012 10:23 AM (ck76k)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 10:23 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: California red at October 20, 2012 10:24 AM (DXTKe)
Posted by: Scobface at October 20, 2012 10:24 AM (IoNBC)
186 AtC is lucky i had to stop my run for the state senate and postpone my quest for total power
but it starts again in two years...soon my bid for the white house will be complete but i swear i will be a brutal but fair emperor
Posted by: navycopjoe has an iphone5 and you don't at October 20, 2012 10:24 AM (xsTuT)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 10:24 AM (+XD7n)
It is just nuts.
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 02:18 PM (+XD7n)
-- ---------- -------- -------- ----------
Government is all about control. They even tried it with booze. Didn't work, booze is too addictive and popular. People don't care enough about alcohol-related deaths (even of innocents) to make booze illegal. Same with tobacco. Hundreds of thousands of early deaths a year, billions in healthcare wasted, and no movement to make tobacco illegal.
Posted by: Meremortal, smoke em if you got em at October 20, 2012 10:24 AM (1Y+hH)
181 #58 ....Pot taxed at the same rates as tobacco would be less expensive than the current product but still pricey enough to make a backyard crop a simple choice for anyone who consumes the stuff.
Posted by: epobirs at October 20, 2012 02:15 PM (kcfmt)
---------
True.
But we would also save billions in not having to pump money into going after pot dealers...and incarcerating dealers and users.
While there would be some people who would grow their own pot...
There would also be a lot of folks who go buy a pack of pre-rolled marijuana cigarettes...because it's easier.
I think it could probably regulated, much like alcohol is today.
It's legal to make your own beer, for example...in small quantities, for personal use.
There are still 'bootleggers' who set up stills, and make pure grain alcohol.
Even though alcohol is legal.
But they don't really make a dent in overall sales of alcohol.
And I agree with what you said about..."taking the cool factor away".
Posted by: wheatie at October 20, 2012 10:25 AM (ipkPX)
I vaguely recall that primordialorderedpair may have noted this once or twice.
Posted by: boulder hobo at October 20, 2012 10:25 AM (QTHTd)
Posted by: navycopjoe has an iphone5 and you don't at October 20, 2012 02:21 PM (xsTuT)
Cigarettes have been and continue to be the gateway drug.
Posted by: Meremortal, smoke em if you got em at October 20, 2012 10:26 AM (1Y+hH)
I have no problem with it being illegal, having seen what happened to pothead friends and family members, but the US Constitution does not permit the federal government to ban drugs.
The feds can restrict or ban it coming into the country or crossing state lines, but that's it.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2012 10:26 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: California red at October 20, 2012 10:27 AM (DXTKe)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 10:28 AM (jUytm)
it's a cash cow, tax-wise
so- in a US where weed was legal, what would a pack of marijuana cigarettes cost?
Posted by: Jones in CO at October 20, 2012 10:28 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 10:28 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: Adam at October 20, 2012 10:29 AM (1//Wu)
Posted by: Jones in CO at October 20, 2012 10:29 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: Ed Anger at October 20, 2012 10:29 AM (tOkJB)
Posted by: @PurpAv at October 20, 2012 10:29 AM (q8jfP)
210 ***looks at marlboro light****
cigarettes are the gateway drug to teenage pregnacy
seriously, in high school the way to tell who the sluts were is by who smoked
unless you went to an all boys catholic school like i did for two years...then the slut was the guy who came out of the confessional with the snickers bar
Posted by: navycopjoe has an iphone5 and you don't at October 20, 2012 10:29 AM (xsTuT)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 10:29 AM (+XD7n)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 10:29 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 10:30 AM (jUytm)
There isn't one. But, the federal government does not have the power granted it in the US Constitution to tell states what to do within their borders, including what drugs are legal and illegal.
Incidentally, if you think illegal pot wouldn't be shipped in across the border even after being legalized, you're naive. People make and sell cigarettes and liquor illegally still.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2012 10:31 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 10:31 AM (+XD7n)
he's smokin' a blunt...
Posted by: Jones in CO at October 20, 2012 10:32 AM (8sCoq)
Probably, but that's another argument.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2012 10:32 AM (r4wIV)
218 nope
government is bound to promote for the public safety
weed is not safe, for example, the next time you need a cab...jump in the one which has the stoned driver
Posted by: navycopjoe has an iphone5 and you don't at October 20, 2012 10:32 AM (xsTuT)
Posted by: Jones in CO at October 20, 2012 10:33 AM (8sCoq)
my bad
Posted by: navycopjoe has an iphone5 and you don't at October 20, 2012 02:27 PM (xsTuT)
That's not the issue. The issue is whether the states have the right to determine whether to prosecute or whether the federal government has a general police power trumping any state decision, in essence making states departments and not states. I sure as hell don't want some appellate court finding a special right to smoke marijuana or inventing some new protected class under the 14th Amendment.
Posted by: Beagle at October 20, 2012 10:33 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: Jones in CO at October 20, 2012 02:28 PM (8sCoq)
You might find out next year in Colorado. I don't think it going to pass though. The Colorado growers are pissed and hoping doesn't pass. They are afraid the price will go down.
Posted by: Meremortal, smoke em if you got em at October 20, 2012 10:33 AM (1Y+hH)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 10:33 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 10:34 AM (+XD7n)
Posted by: wheatie at October 20, 2012 10:34 AM (ipkPX)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 10:35 AM (+XD7n)
Posted by: California red at October 20, 2012 10:35 AM (DXTKe)
Posted by: Michael Bloomberg at October 20, 2012 10:35 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Truman North at October 20, 2012 10:35 AM (I2LwF)
wouldn't matter- I'm subject to random piss tests at work. Thanks DoT!
but if I weren't I would be going thru blond Lebanese hashish like it was popcorn.
Posted by: Jones in CO at October 20, 2012 10:36 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: tofer732 at October 20, 2012 10:36 AM (m5Iwq)
Posted by: Daybrother at October 20, 2012 10:36 AM (+paCV)
Posted by: Ohio Dan` at October 20, 2012 10:36 AM (JKNDp)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 10:37 AM (+XD7n)
while it might make some people lazy , it also might be useful as an anti anxiety agent.
although i have read it has a higher tar type thing than cigs. but in general i'm with the who cares.
my problem is would we than have to say meth is alright? I guess if the recourse to the bad behavior of most meth users wouldbe for them to pay for their decisions while using as drunk drivers?
Posted by: willow at October 20, 2012 10:37 AM (hX8cq)
Posted by: Daybrother at October 20, 2012 10:37 AM (+paCV)
Posted by: Ian S. at October 20, 2012 10:38 AM (rPA5/)
Given the argument against pot here, cigs and alcohol should be illegal.
Posted by: Meremortal, smoke em if you got em at October 20, 2012 10:38 AM (1Y+hH)
Posted by: the clubfooted pegleg at October 20, 2012 10:39 AM (Q2wni)
Posted by: willow at October 20, 2012 10:39 AM (hX8cq)
....so- in a US where weed was legal, what would a pack of marijuana cigarettes cost?
Posted by: Jones in CO at October 20, 2012 02:28 PM (8sCoq)
Just like with alcohol...there would probably be different 'grades'.
$20...for basic stuff....on up to $50-$100 for the stuff that makes you see Elvis?
Posted by: wheatie at October 20, 2012 10:39 AM (ipkPX)
http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/
Posted by: Vic at October 20, 2012 10:39 AM (YdQQY)
Everyone here has no problem agreeing that cigarettes are a really bad thing that we'd be better off with (30 years ago you would have responded with "seriously? dude."). However, they cannot be banned, ever. It doesn't matter how awful and destructive and lethal they are. You cannot ban cigarettes.
Many of these drugs are presently illegal, such as marijuana. You cannot, CAN NOT put that genie back in the bottle. There's no scenario whereby as an experiment where we try it out a while, go "holy crap that was a bad idea" and make them illegal again. Not possible. And if smoking cigarettes is a bad idea... so is smoking weed. Why add yet another bad thing to the public that we can't get rid of when it turns out awful? Its just a bad idea, no matter what flag of "freedom" you wave while really meaning 'I want to smoke weed without worrying."
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2012 10:40 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: navycopjoe has an iphone5 and you don't at October 20, 2012 10:40 AM (xsTuT)
Maybe drug possession/influence would be better treated as an aggravating factor on other offenses than a crime in and of itself.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at October 20, 2012 10:41 AM (RLZvP)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 10:41 AM (+XD7n)
Again: you can't put that genie back in the bottle. Making something new legal means it stays legal no matter what, just like cigs and alcohol.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2012 10:41 AM (r4wIV)
261 of course
and the 100+ loser cubbies
if it wasn't for the damn tasty burritos and italian combo sammiches from the near north side i would be ashamed to admit i'm from chicago
Posted by: navycopjoe has an iphone5 and you don't at October 20, 2012 10:43 AM (xsTuT)
mom mind the basement getting skunked up?
I don't mind a bit, except when he feeds it to his poodle and the bastard shits all over the place.
Posted by: Greg's mom at October 20, 2012 10:43 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: willow at October 20, 2012 10:43 AM (hX8cq)
And if pot is going to destroy the county it would have already been destroyed. Using that logic we were better off ads a country when it was legal.
And the federal government does not have the authority to enact those drug laws. I actually told a federal judge that when I was called for for jury duty.
Posted by: Vic at October 20, 2012 10:44 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 02:41 PM (+XD7n)
Preach it brother!
Posted by: The Choom Gang at October 20, 2012 10:44 AM (wR+pz)
The gateway drug argument is just nonsense. By the same rational this nation should have collapsed as the bulk of the population became raging alcoholics when they moved on from sneaking a beer from the fridge when they were teenagers.
In the town where I grew up, Thousand Oaks, it was easier to make a list of my peers who hadn't tried pot. It would maybe take up two pages in the high school yearbook. Local shops sold shirts featuring a laughing tree and the name 'Thousand Tokes, CA' alongside the 'Thousand Jokes, CA' variant.
So, did TO become a horrible ghetto full of junkies who got started on pot? Nope. If anything, the place got a lot more expensive and upscale. The majority of kids who were regular pot smokers in the late 70s grew up and got jobs, spouses, kids, mortgages, etc., and didn't have time for getting wasted anymore. A few worthless types never gave it up and remained worthless types but scarcely any of them that I knew of became serious junkies. They were no different than those who became drunk in previous generations whose numbers only increased under prohibition.
Most of the people I've ever known who went through a serious drug habit didn't need a 'gateway' drug. They just needed a desire to work all day and party all night. Pot does not give you that. Pot is party all night and not show up at work at all. I've actually met coke users who reacted with shock at the idea they got started with pot. Smoking? My body is a temple!
Posted by: epobirs at October 20, 2012 10:44 AM (kcfmt)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 10:44 AM (+XD7n)
hey, with our fucked up politics and courts, anything's possible
Posted by: Jones in CO at October 20, 2012 10:45 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: GeorgiaJarhead at October 20, 2012 10:45 AM (SXPOu)
Even in states with lotteries and where gambling is legal, illegal bookies and mob numbers games thrive.
Why? Because the mob provides better customer service than the govt.
The mob offers credit and running tabs, is open 7x24, and runners make collection/deliveries saving you a trip to the official "legal" gambling venues.
Advantage: mob.
Posted by: @PurpAv at October 20, 2012 10:47 AM (q8jfP)
LOL, Jefferson did grow hemp.
Posted by: Vic at October 20, 2012 10:47 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 10:47 AM (+XD7n)
a D+9 Sample Really?
I HAVE A D+9 SAMPLE IN MAH PANTS FOR YOU COCKSUCKERS!!
Posted by: jeremiah Gosh Darn Amerikkka Ali Muhammad Surpra-izi Amin U'rbu T'hol wright at October 20, 2012 10:47 AM (ovpNn)
Posted by: Lincolntf at October 20, 2012 10:47 AM (HethX)
Let's face it....the 'War on Drugs' has been a failure, just like the 'War on Poverty'.
For all the billions that we've spent on having the DEA...we have very little to show for it.
That money can be better spent elsewhere.
Like border enforcement.
Posted by: wheatie at October 20, 2012 10:48 AM (ipkPX)
Posted by: What do you do all day if you don't watch tv, anne? at October 20, 2012 10:48 AM (oZfic)
... are you seriously aguing that pesticides are the same degree of societal acceptance and use as alcohol?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2012 10:48 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™, Crankypants Extraordinaire at October 20, 2012 10:49 AM (hO8IJ)
Only way to show that would be to stop and compare. I'm willing to give it a 1 year moratorium where we simply stop enforcing drug laws, just to show what would happen. Hint: we saw how that worked in places like Detroit and Chicago during prohibition.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2012 10:49 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: elizabethe loves a brownie at October 20, 2012 10:49 AM (dYcnp)
Posted by: Michael Bloomberg at October 20, 2012 10:49 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Daybrother at October 20, 2012 10:49 AM (+paCV)
Sounds like a straight up progressive to me...who happens to be a stoner.
Posted by: @PurpAv at October 20, 2012 10:50 AM (q8jfP)
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at October 20, 2012 02:46 PM (OWjjx)
I never liked the Pot Fetishist. This is the guy with the extensive collection of roach clips, has 6 different kinds of rolling papers, a bong for every occasion, and a 7-step work flow for preparing the pot for smoking.
Just twist it up dude- 3 Stooges is starting.
Posted by: Jones in CO at October 20, 2012 10:50 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: ahem at October 20, 2012 10:50 AM (FbJlB)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 10:51 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: Ed Anger at October 20, 2012 10:51 AM (tOkJB)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2012 10:51 AM (r4wIV)
Did you know that there is some correlation between the use of nicotine and the ABSENCE of Alzheimer's?
And have you ever wondered why we have so many cases of road rage and airplane passenger insanity? I think it is because nicotine, which is a tension release, is not longer prevalently used. This is also probably why Valium prescriptions have skyrocketed.
I have smoked since I was 15. I managed to graduate without being labeled a slut, and my mother smoked almost all of her life, and she was a Dean of Women at a small college.
Yes, I know that probably if I didn't smoke I could run a marathon or something else equally boring. I know that it probably isn't good for me. However, at my present age I would just like people to shut up about cigarettes and leave me alone.
Thank you.
PS. My mother lived to be 85.
Posted by: Miss Marple at October 20, 2012 10:52 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 10:52 AM (+XD7n)
Posted by: @PurpAv at October 20, 2012 10:52 AM (q8jfP)
Posted by: willow at October 20, 2012 10:52 AM (hX8cq)
Posted by: Scobface at October 20, 2012 10:53 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2012 02:51 PM (r4wIV)
oh, you've kicked a hornet's nest now
Posted by: Jones in CO at October 20, 2012 10:53 AM (8sCoq)
I guess you missed the post where I went into detail about how once liquor or cigarettes are legal, they can't be made illegal again. Thus, the word "again" which is typically understood in the English language to mean "as I argued previously."
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2012 10:53 AM (r4wIV)
That's why I can't stand the "pot laws exist to feed the prison-industrial complex!" crap. I say legalize small amounts, but we're not currently living under some extreme anti-pot regime.
Posted by: Lincolntf at October 20, 2012 10:53 AM (HethX)
When I was a kid you could still buy hemp rope. It was cheaper than cotton rope and made good swings. You can buy hemp rope now but it is imported. It is illegal to grow hemp in the US now.
Oregon is suing the DEA over that.
Posted by: Vic at October 20, 2012 10:53 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Tami at October 20, 2012 10:54 AM (X6akg)
I didn't mean it insultingly, I was just appealing to a sense of humor and honesty. Seriously, in today's culture do people really feel like they have to be shy about smoking weed? Its practically mandatory in sports, entertainment, and the presidency.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2012 10:54 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 10:54 AM (+XD7n)
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 20, 2012 10:55 AM (jUytm)
Exactly, I don't think there's a cop alive who'll bust some guy for having a joint in his car ashtray or a few in his pocket. They'll use it to stack up charges on a guy they already nailed, to make it harder for a defense attorney to get them off, but they'll just confiscate it and give a warning. Seriously, people smoke pot in public and brag about it all the time in Hollywood and in the music industry, how often are they tackled by cops?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2012 10:56 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: @PurpAv at October 20, 2012 10:57 AM (q8jfP)
Oh I'm with you. I've always believed the whole medical marijuana thing was just an end run by people who wanna get stoned.
Posted by: Jones in CO at October 20, 2012 10:57 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 10:57 AM (+XD7n)
Posted by: The Man from Athens at October 20, 2012 10:58 AM (RXQ2T)
Me personally? Nope but the government needs to control some behavior. I'm sure you agree, you just draw the line in a different place than I do.
But are you arguing you would not and have no interesting smoking weed if it was legal?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2012 10:58 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: Beheaded Mexican in Juarez at October 20, 2012 10:59 AM (sOtz/)
Yawn, poll post.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2012 10:59 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 10:59 AM (+XD7n)
Posted by: K~Bob at October 20, 2012 11:00 AM (4iwD2)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2012 11:01 AM (r4wIV)
or the right to jail fine people for those choices.
might help against financing terrorists and cartels?
(also don't use)
Posted by: willow at October 20, 2012 11:02 AM (hX8cq)
Posted by: eman at October 20, 2012 11:03 AM (+XD7n)
Do you know how many runners need knee replacements? And they expect the rest of us to subsidize their idiotic "lifestyle choice"...
Another fun experiment: Plot "percent of adults who smoke" and "percent of adults who are obese", 1950-2010, on the same graph and stare at the lines.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™, Crankypants Extraordinaire at October 20, 2012 11:04 AM (hO8IJ)
And nicotine is a natural antidepressant. When you take side-effects into account, it's probably better overall than most antidepressants.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at October 20, 2012 11:05 AM (RLZvP)
The great majority of pot smokers, in a environment where it were legal (DUI laws would still apply as they do for alcohol and prescription drugs) would not be consuming in anywhere near the same volume as tobacco smokers, in much the same way that most alcohol consumers are not drunks. Tobacco offers just the right level of addictive stimulation to allow chain smoking while remaining a functional worker. Thus fortunes are made for the tobacco industry.
Not all consumers would grow their own but one serious grower in the neighborhood would kill tax revenues. It's called weed for a reason. One running joke when I was a kid was to randomly distribute the seeds all over the place. You never knew where you might spot a cannabis plant on a hiking trail or in in somebody's back yard who had no idea it was there.
You might try to have the IRS go after the neighborhood grower but it would be difficult at best. Industrial scale growers working above board would have a hard time competing. It certainly would offer comparable profits to tobacco.
To me, the best result would be after a few decades for concern over pot smoking to be a weird historical footnote and law enforcement rarely encountering THC as the chemical behind a DUI arrest. It is one of the all-time best examples of creating a problem where none existed. But then, the real problem being solved when marijuana was criminalized wasn't drug use. Chalk up another one for big government.
Posted by: epobirs at October 20, 2012 11:06 AM (kcfmt)
Exceptions made for Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Brown, Columbia, Northwestern, and any other Ivy League institution, whose graduates shall be henceforth known as Fruit From The Poison Tree.
Posted by: navybrat in CA at October 20, 2012 11:06 AM (IJFXG)
This really is about state power v. federal power. The only thing I think about some drug prosecutions is that the prison space would be better used keeping in child sex offenders or something. I'm not wasting one moment of time trying to sell Florida on the wonders of more legal drugs.
You can't avoid the fact that being a conservative means sticking up for state power on every issue but this one.
Posted by: Beagle at October 20, 2012 11:08 AM (sOtz/)
It is also notable that 'chronic fatigue syndrome' became a very popular complaint just about the same time a generation stopped doing coke and discovered that sleeping for more than three hours a night was normal, albeit inconvenient.
Posted by: epobirs at October 20, 2012 11:09 AM (kcfmt)
OK.....here is the deal. I would favor legalization if pot smokers would outlaw the pot historian.
You know, that guy who smokes pot and then decides to tell you the secret history of pot, how all the founding fathers grew pot, how Mt. Vernon was nothing more than rows and rows of pot. How Lincoln fired up a blunt and then wrote the Proc. Emancipation. How Truman smoked a blunt to calm his nerves before dropping Fat Boy (and why do you think they called it Fat Boy....in honor of Truman's blunt) on Japan.
Yea, hey, pot historian. You may be one of the most annoying people in history.
You've watched the movie Dazed and Confused, also?
Slater: Behind every good man there is a woman, and that woman was Martha Washington, man, and everyday George would come home, she would have a big fat bowl waiting for him, man, when he come in the door, man, she was a hip, hip, hip lady, man.
Slater: George Washington was in a cult, and the cult was into aliens, man.
Also, a young Milla Jovovich.
Posted by: Count de Monet at October 20, 2012 11:18 AM (BAS5M)
All I have to say is Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure. That and party time for my little family unit.
Posted by: Hobo Cookbook Final Chapter. Desert. Gonna Get Ugly Folks at October 20, 2012 11:20 AM (32Scy)
That goes back to removing the coolness factor. Legalize and within a few decades the only pot historians will be tweedy guys with elbow patches on their coats teaching at Ag schools.
Posted by: epobirs at October 20, 2012 11:23 AM (kcfmt)
Posted by: steevy at October 20, 2012 11:34 AM (6o4Fb)
<I'd accuse him of making up some lame excuse for covering over the fact that he really just thinks Obama sucks, but I've talked to liberals at length many, many times, and their thinking is so muddled and confused you wouldn't believe it.>
This is what I felt when I read the Buzz Whats-his-name endorsement. I was happy to have the vote any way I could get it but, sheesh, it was fuzzy-headed.
Posted by: Beanerschnitzel at October 20, 2012 11:35 AM (8d63Z)
For that matter, alcoholic beverages went from legal >> illegal >> legal but highly taxed. Prohibition (of alcohol) was a huge failure because its popularity was so broadly based. It was never socially unacceptable to be known as one who takes a drink.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at October 20, 2012 11:43 AM (29+x5)
Ok, so Scott Adams is a pot head who would endorse Obama were it not for this issue, roger that.
Posted by: Andrew at October 20, 2012 11:57 AM (e5K24)
Posted by: The Man from Athens at October 20, 2012 12:16 PM (RXQ2T)
For whatever reason, Obama has crawled into bed with one or more of the Mexican drug cartels.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at October 20, 2012 12:24 PM (IN7k+)
Posted by: Mr Wonderful at October 20, 2012 01:19 PM (lD8ju)
Posted by: McThag at October 20, 2012 03:42 PM (jEu8T)
Posted by: entropy at October 20, 2012 04:13 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: entropy at October 20, 2012 04:31 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: czekmark at October 21, 2012 05:02 AM (YP23X)
Posted by: Thunderb at October 21, 2012 10:40 AM (Dnbau)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2835 seconds, 467 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: mallfly at October 20, 2012 09:06 AM (bJm7W)