Ace of Spades HQ

January 16, 2014

Steven Crowder: I Don't Mind Arguments In Favor of Pot Decriminalization, But I'm Not a Fan of Dishonesty and Ignorance
— Ace

Via Hot Air, which also notes the New Hampshire legislature just "endorsed" a pot legalization bill by a narrow vote of 170-168. "Endorsing" the bill means... that they vote on it again, this time for real.

I don't know why they do it this way. I suspect it's because they're taking the pot.

Crowder doesn't make an argument pro or con about drug legalization so much as he makes an argument in favor of informed and candid debate.

And I think virtually everything he says here is true (with one caveat):

No, legalizing pot will not reduce criminality. It's not the case that drug dealers are in the pot trade because they have a long family tradition of selling pot, and then the government just up and went and made their family business illegal.

They are selling pot precisely because it is illegal -- you can charge a premium for contraband. If they are not exacting a criminal premium on their drug endeavors, they will find a new avenue of criminality which does pay them that premium.

No, pot is not harmless. Of course it's not. I don't know if it's more harmful than alcohol or less, but no frequently-taken drug which directly affects your mind (and your personality) could possibly be "harmless."

One harm pot doesn't expose people to is the pain of a hangover. But alcohol's hangover effect may be a feature, not a bug, in as much as it provides a direct and potent biological negative feedback telling the drinker "Maybe slow down next time, huh?"

One thing I question is the claim that pot increases the incidence of, and exacerbates the severity of, schizophrenia and psychotic breaks. Correlation does not prove causation -- and I hope I'm not too out of line in suggesting that people strongly drawn to any kind of neurochemical escape, be it alcohol, pot, or pills, tend to be a little fucked up.

That is, people seeking illicit drugs are often basically self-medicating, and that introduces the possibility (or probability) that they have a pre-existing condition they feel the need to medicate.

But while I question that, I don't actually dispute it-- I just don't know.

Posted by: Ace at 11:16 AM | Comments (514)
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I made brownies.

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 11:17 AM (UHS5k)

2 Because we're gonna need them if we have another pot thread.

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 11:18 AM (UHS5k)

3 Legalize it. Because George Washington had hemp ropes. /weedwisdom

Posted by: wooga at January 16, 2014 11:18 AM (MfaOD)

4 I forgot what I was going to type. Mmmm, brownies.

Posted by: superflex at January 16, 2014 11:19 AM (4a/4i)

5 Only one hour until 420!

Posted by: I'm not addicted. I can stop any time I want. at January 16, 2014 11:19 AM (NXg/k)

6 Dude...

Posted by: NCKate at January 16, 2014 11:19 AM (x6fKj)

7 The main problem I see with pot is that smoking it in public or enclosed areas can lead to a contact high for people who didn't indulge, which is NOT a problem for most other drugs such as alcohol. These are probably the same people wanting to crucify smokers for second-hand smoke health problems and yet they see no problem with little Johnny getting hotboxed by mommy and daddy.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 16, 2014 11:20 AM (/Crba)

8 and I hope I'm not too out of line in suggesting that people strongly drawn to any kind of escape, be it alcohol, pot, comic books, or pills, tend to be a little fucked up.

FIFY.

Posted by: HR at January 16, 2014 11:20 AM (ZKzrr)

9 I was going to post something...but then I got high.

Posted by: EC at January 16, 2014 11:21 AM (GQ8sn)

10 The main problem I see with pot is that smoking it in public or enclosed areas can lead to a contact high for people who didn't indulge If this was true, it would have saved me a lot of money over the years.

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 11:21 AM (UHS5k)

11 9 I was going to post something...but then I got high. --- Now you're jackin' off and we know why... cause you got high cause you got high cause you got hiiiiiigh.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 16, 2014 11:21 AM (/Crba)

12 I hope I'm not too out of line in suggesting that people strongly drawn to any kind of biochemical escape, be it alcohol, pot, or pills, tend to be a little fucked up. "Ace hates freedom" in 5...4...3...2...

Posted by: --- at January 16, 2014 11:22 AM (MMC8r)

13 10 The main problem I see with pot is that smoking it in public or enclosed areas can lead to a contact high for people who didn't indulge If this was true, it would have saved me a lot of money over the years. --- It really depends on the amount being smoked by some people. If you go onto a tour bus for Willie Nelson or Cypress Hill, you don't need to smoke jack shit to get high.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 16, 2014 11:22 AM (/Crba)

>>Dude...

.Dave's not here.

Posted by: Tommy Chong at January 16, 2014 11:22 AM (Hdbf3)

15 I was going to post something...but then I got high. ---- Dammit. I had just gotten that song out of my head after listening to the podcast.

Posted by: Jenny Hates That Song at January 16, 2014 11:22 AM (+bkaS)

16 Recent stories are also speculating that these new head shops in CO have now made themselves targets for extortion and robbery, being all-cash businesses. See, dealing pot is still a federal crime, and banks won't touch anyone in the business. Try getting a merchant account so that you can take credit card payments to sell weed. You think drug dealers won't subvert legal sales by getting licenses through straw owners and selling legal weed at 300% of their usual profit to people who are afraid to buy dope from criminals, while keeping their base of regulars? This is so fucking stupid. All of it.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 11:22 AM (CJjw5)

17 Decriminalize it.. don't legalize it. Legalizing it brings a whole new bureaucracy into being. Just stop arresting people for smoking it.

Colorado is taxing the shit out of this stuff.. up to 30% combined state and municipalities in some areas.

But all that does is fund all the bureaucratic bullshit of licensing and enforcement.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 16, 2014 11:23 AM (f9c2L)

18 >>>The main problem I see with pot is that smoking it in public or enclosed areas can lead to a contact high for people who didn't indulge, which is NOT a problem for most other drugs such as alcohol. uh... this doesn't seem to be much of a problem to me. The fact that a non-smoker might occasionally be exposed to second hand pot smoke? Um, leave the room.

Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 11:23 AM (/FnUH)

19 I hope I'm not too out of line in suggesting that people strongly drawn to any kind of biochemical escape, be it alcohol, pot, or pills, tend to be a little fucked up.

I'll take "Ewok Lifestyle Choice" for $200, Alex.

Posted by: EC at January 16, 2014 11:23 AM (GQ8sn)

20 If you go onto a tour bus for Willie Nelson or Cypress Hill, you don't need to smoke jack shit to get high. Yeah, no. Been there. If you want to get high, you will need to partake in the festivities.

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 11:23 AM (UHS5k)

21 Dude.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 16, 2014 11:23 AM (8ZskC)

22 >>No, pot is not harmless. Of course it's not. I don't know if it's more harmful than alcohol or less, but no frequently-taken drug which directly affects your mind (and your personality) could possibly be "harmless." Internet addiction is a real thing too. Has a profound affect on some people. Pusher.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 16, 2014 11:24 AM (g1DWB)

23 If this was true, it would have saved me a lot of money over the years. Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 03:21 PM (UHS5k) ---------------------------- I got jinked outta my fuckin mind at a Pink Floyd concert in 1988 without taking a single toke. An open air concert. And the next day, I could have rolled and smoked my sweater for a repeat.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 11:24 AM (CJjw5)

24 >>I hope I'm not too out of line in suggesting that people strongly drawn to any kind of biochemical escape, be it alcohol, pot, or pills, tend to be a little fucked up. My God, he really doesn't read the comment threads.

Posted by: Caliban at January 16, 2014 11:24 AM (DrC22)

25 Dave's not here.

Have you checked The Federalist.

Posted by: Mega at January 16, 2014 11:25 AM (hHFOx)

26 Just because it's legal in that state mean that an employer can't can you for tinkling hot?

Posted by: Heywood Jablowme at January 16, 2014 11:25 AM (jsWA8)

27 Hasn't contact high been proven to be placebo/psychological phenomenon? I think I read something about that (but I might've been high)

Posted by: Jenny Hates That Song at January 16, 2014 11:25 AM (+bkaS)

28 >>Dude... . . .Dave's not here. It's Dave man.

Posted by: Weirddave at January 16, 2014 11:25 AM (N/cFh)

29 Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 03:24 PM (CJjw5)

My word is shattered. You wear sweaters?

Posted by: Mega at January 16, 2014 11:25 AM (hHFOx)

30 Yeah, there appears to be some opportunities for armed robbers in the new legalized pot biz.

Posted by: Dr. Pug at January 16, 2014 11:26 AM (Qev5V)

31 Some say, "Hey, it'll be great we can tax it" but forget that you might just tax it right back to the dealer. If you tax it way too much, it'll be cheaper on the street still. If it isn't legalized nationwide, then the possibilities of economies of scale being part of the lowering cost won't appear - Reynolds American isn't going to plant a few thousand fields of indica if they can't get a bank to accept their deposits. So the most efficient might still be the dealers and the market can still support smugglers and other criminals without much of a burble. It's not as cut and dried as a lot try to make it out - it's still a market and it just has one of the barriers removed in a local area - it's not easy-peasy.

Posted by: Inspector Cussword at January 16, 2014 11:26 AM (g/68I)

32 Yeah, there appears to be some opportunities for armed robbers in the new legalized pot biz.

Old is new again.

Posted by: EC at January 16, 2014 11:26 AM (GQ8sn)

33 I got jinked outta my fuckin mind at a Pink Floyd concert in 1988 without taking a single toke. An open air concert. You sure you didn't find a half eaten cookie on the ground and eat it?

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 11:26 AM (UHS5k)

34 *opens bag of Doritos*

Posted by: Roy at January 16, 2014 11:26 AM (VndSC)

35 My word is shattered. You wear sweaters? Posted by: Mega at January 16, 2014 03:25 PM (hHFOx) -------------------------- It was cold. And I was fifteen. Gimme a break.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 11:26 AM (CJjw5)

36 26 Just because it's legal in that state mean that an employer can't can you for tinkling hot? --- We won't know until the lawsuit happens. I'm leaning toward "no, they can still fire you." The current legal precedent is the case where the Indian tribesmen working at the drug center got fired for using peyote and had it upheld as being part of their religious practices. Using pot is not a "religious practice" unless you are a Rastafarian, as far as I know.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 16, 2014 11:27 AM (/Crba)

37 Dave's not here.

Posted by: Dave at January 16, 2014 11:27 AM (mETGQ)

38 My word is shattered. You wear sweaters? ----- Sweaters should not be worn by those lacking sweater puppets. But, theatre majors don't like to follow rules.

Posted by: Jenny Hates That Song at January 16, 2014 11:27 AM (+bkaS)

39 33 I got jinked outta my fuckin mind at a Pink Floyd concert in 1988 without taking a single toke. An open air concert. You sure you didn't find a half eaten cookie on the ground and eat it? --- I knew I shouldn't have eaten that packet of powdered gravy I found in the parking lot...

Posted by: Homer J. Simpson at January 16, 2014 11:27 AM (/Crba)

40 yes, yes, and yes, but, I know a lot of people (users, not dealers) that got screwed over by getting caught. It will reduce the criminality of the user. It is corrosive to the state to have laws which are routinely ignored, and the main line to tyranny is built by having laws which are routinely ignored and selectively prosecuted. Our pot laws are a problem that needs to be fixed. I hate pot, but I hate giving the local criminal justice guild so much power a lot more.

Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at January 16, 2014 11:27 AM (LWu6U)

41 It was cold. And I was fifteen. Gimme a break. Damn, I had a 10th grade Drama Club Field Trip response all typed up and ready to go!

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 11:27 AM (UHS5k)

42 Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 03:24 PM (CJjw5)

My word is shattered. You wear sweaters?

Posted by: Mega

Would a theater major wear anything else?

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 16, 2014 11:28 AM (nZiT2)

43 I was going to post something...but then I got high. Duuuuuude.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 16, 2014 11:28 AM (cUARf)

44 It was cold. And I was fifteen. Gimme a break.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 03:26 PM (CJjw5)

So you were experimenting.

Posted by: Mega at January 16, 2014 11:28 AM (hHFOx)

45 You sure you didn't find a half eaten cookie on the ground and eat it? Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 03:26 PM (UHS5k) -------------------------- It was in Lille, France. It would have been a marijuana croissant.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 11:28 AM (CJjw5)

46 It was cold. And I was fifteen. Gimme a break. Look, it was hot and I was hungry, okay?

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 16, 2014 11:28 AM (QF8uk)

47 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 16, 2014 11:29 AM (nUH8H)

48 >>>It is corrosive to the state to have laws which are routinely ignored, and the main line to tyranny is built by having laws which are routinely ignored and selectively prosecuted. Dumb laws, laws that don't make sense to people, and are only occasionally enforced by the state, breed contempt for the law as a general matter.

Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 11:29 AM (/FnUH)

49 Waiting on e-doob.

Posted by: NCKate at January 16, 2014 11:29 AM (x6fKj)

50 Also can they track a legal purchase against a 4473? Because the fed's still say no, any lying on a 4473 and you a screwed.

Posted by: Heywood Jablowme at January 16, 2014 11:29 AM (jsWA8)

51 Pot leads to bad engineering projects, like bongs made out of PVC tube off-cuts and coconuts. Also, bad art like day-glo velvet peace symbols.

Posted by: Bigby's Mitts at January 16, 2014 11:29 AM (3ZtZW)

52 It was in Lille, France. It would have been a marijuana croissant. How do you say 'Crooked Lady Finger' in French?

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 11:29 AM (UHS5k)

>>Dave's not here.

It's Dave man.

.Dude, Dave's not here.

Posted by: Tommy Chong at January 16, 2014 11:29 AM (Hdbf3)

54 Aaaaand... I'm out. Actually, I was out anyway- gotta pick up the kid from school. It's just serendipitous that I get to miss out on yet another pot thread.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 16, 2014 11:29 AM (nUH8H)

55 Using pots is not a "religious practice" unless you are a Pastafarian, as far as I know. FIFY.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 16, 2014 11:29 AM (cUARf)

56 Joseph is a fruitful bough, mon.

Posted by: toby928© at January 16, 2014 11:29 AM (QupBk)

57 Why do pro-legalization people need to say 'tax the hell out of it?' If it's okay to use, what justifies taxing it?

Posted by: --- at January 16, 2014 11:30 AM (MMC8r)

58 It was in Lille, France. ---- Are you positive you weren't just a little lightheaded from the fumes of French hygiene?

Posted by: Jenny Hates The French at January 16, 2014 11:30 AM (+bkaS)

59 If it's okay to use, what justifies taxing it? I feel the same way about the pen I bought yesterday.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 16, 2014 11:30 AM (QF8uk)

60 Waiting on e-doob. There's no wait. It's been here for a while, now. Almost all of my California clients show up with atomizers these days.

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 11:31 AM (UHS5k)

61 Waiting on e-doob. iDoob.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 16, 2014 11:31 AM (cUARf)

62 >>Using pot is not a "religious practice" unless you are a Rastafarian, as far as I know.

What about Trustafarians? Cause that's, like, half of Boulder....

Posted by: Lizzy at January 16, 2014 11:31 AM (POpqt)

63 One harm pot doesn't expose people to is the pain of a hangover. But alcohol's hangover effect may be a feature, not a bug, in as much as it provides a direct and potent biological negative feedback telling the drinker "Maybe slow down next time, huh?" [...] One thing I question is the claim that pot increases the incidence of, and exacerbates the severity of, schizophrenia and psychotic breaks. Correlation does not imply causation -- and I hope I'm not too out of line in suggesting that people strongly drawn to any kind of biochemical escape, be it alcohol, pot, or pills, tend to be a little fucked up. That is, people seeking illicit drugs are often basically self-medicating, and that introduces the possibility (or probability) that they have a pre-existing condition they feel the need to medicate. But while I question that, I don't actually dispute it-- I just don't know. ****** Yep. Now what is the incidence of mental disease in this country? The Obamatrons have an ad out for it. They claim a higher rate than what I would expect. Now just wait till we have to dole out disability money for that.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 16, 2014 11:31 AM (RJMhd)

64 Um, leave the room.

I'm allergic to pot. Gets me violently ill just smelling it.

I've had to leave concerts because of it. Of course, if I dared to light a cigarette, I would get thrown out with extreme malice, but if I lit up a joint?

heeeeey, it's all cool.....

I paid just as much for my ticket, but I should leave the room.

I really don't care if someone smokes pot, but I would like to think that pot smokers would have the same rules, either legal or societal, enforced on them as are imposed on tobacco smokers.

Posted by: wiserbud at January 16, 2014 11:31 AM (NXg/k)

65 Legalizing alcohol was the first step down the slippery slope. It's been downhill ever since.

Posted by: Carrie Nation at January 16, 2014 11:31 AM (1Y+hH)

66 60 Yup.

Posted by: NCKate at January 16, 2014 11:31 AM (x6fKj)

67 All those stories out of Colo when then pot became legal just made me feel like we are becoming a shabby society. And I used to partake back in the day.

Maybe it was just culture shock.

Posted by: eleven at January 16, 2014 11:31 AM (KXm42)

68 My favorite part of this whole argument is that it has now come to light the DEA has partnered with the Sinola cartel, allowing them to import tons of weed into the US in exchange for information on other cartels but if you get caught with a baggie of weed they will throw your ass in prison. This seems a little off to me.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 16, 2014 11:31 AM (g1DWB)

69 Just legalize it, declare the war on pot won and move on. We aren't going to win the war on poverty but we will always have politicians there pushing for more funding. Lets just win this one, win one for the gipper!

Posted by: Drider at January 16, 2014 11:32 AM (/VmYa)

Pot is just one more thing for the proletariat to embibe in so that they won't really notice the brown-shirts marching down the street.

It's why we don't see any push-back from DC. Keep the people high. Then we can do what we want and they'll be too fucked up to want to do anything about it.

Posted by: Soona at January 16, 2014 11:32 AM (SneYa)

71 >>>I'm allergic to pot. Gets me violently ill just smelling it. I've had to leave concerts because of it. Of course, if I dared to light a cigarette, I would get thrown out with extreme malice, but if I lit up a joint? ... hear that, but this is like the ban on peanuts because some people are allergic.

Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 11:32 AM (/FnUH)

72 What about Trustafarians? Cause that's, like, half of Boulder.... Posted by: Lizzy at January 16, 2014 03:31 PM (POpqt) ****** You mean East Coast trust fund babies? Ha!

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 16, 2014 11:32 AM (RJMhd)

"But while I question that, I don't actually dispute it-- I just don't know."

If it turned out to be true, would it change your position?

Posted by: The Awkward-Turtle at January 16, 2014 11:32 AM (nJ57N)

74 Dumb laws, laws that don't make sense to people, and are only occasionally enforced by the state, breed contempt for the law as a general matter. Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 03:29 PM (/FnUH) ------------------------------ I got a pen and a phone.

Posted by: B-Rock O'Bizzy at January 16, 2014 11:32 AM (CJjw5)

75 I'm allergic to pot. Gets me violently ill just smelling it.

I'm the same way, but with hay.

Posted by: Lisa Douglas at January 16, 2014 11:32 AM (8ZskC)

76 Yeah, if you can smoke it, why can't it be sold in pill form?

Posted by: Dr. Pug at January 16, 2014 11:32 AM (Qev5V)

77 Waiting on e-doob.
Posted by: NCKate
...................
Wait no more!

http://tinyurl.com/k5crr23

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 16, 2014 11:32 AM (f9c2L)

>>Also can they track a legal purchase against a 4473? Because the fed's still say no, any lying on a 4473 and you a screwed.

.Fill out the State form honestly and you are barred for life from buying a gun. Just sayin.......

Posted by: Registered Voter at January 16, 2014 11:33 AM (Hdbf3)

79 And, IMHO pot is way worse for the brain the alcohol. I figured that out in the 80's. It makes you stupid, slow witted, and forgetful.

Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at January 16, 2014 11:33 AM (LWu6U)

80 It's why we don't see any push-back from DC. Keep the people high. Then we can do what we want and they'll be too fucked up to want to do anything about it. Soma.

Posted by: toby928© at January 16, 2014 11:33 AM (QupBk)

81 Not a State form BATF

Posted by: Heywood Jablowme at January 16, 2014 11:33 AM (jsWA8)

82 I would like to think that pot smokers would have the same rules, either legal or societal, enforced on them as are imposed on tobacco smokers. That will be easier if pot is legal. Normal people donÂ’t like to send other people to jail. Especially customers. Plus, if they gain knowledge that their customers are smoking illegal pot, they can lose a lot, including their business. I really donÂ’t see any chance of it being difficult to ensure that smoking counts as smoking, regardless of whether itÂ’s tobacco or marijuana, once they are on the same legal footing.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 16, 2014 11:34 AM (QF8uk)

83 If alcohol and cigarettes are legal, pot should be legal. Plus weed cures cancer.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 16, 2014 11:34 AM (DpEwG)

84 BRING BACK QUAALUDES!!

Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 11:34 AM (bStrg)

85 Why do pro-legalization people need to say 'tax the hell out of it?' If it's okay to use, what justifies taxing it? I feel the same way about the smokes, booze & gas that I've bought.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 16, 2014 11:34 AM (cUARf)

86 77 yup.

Posted by: NCKate at January 16, 2014 11:35 AM (x6fKj)

87 I tend to agree with the late William F. Buckley, Jr. We spend over $1 billion a year on pot enforcement, and more on incarceration, with little to show for it. Just like Prohibition, it is clear it isn't successful. But the level of harm, while debatable, is pretty clearly less than heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamines, so perhaps it's time to give legalization a try.

HOWEVER, the Obama Dictator method is quite wrong. Pot is a federal law, it's on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. States should not be able to just "nullify" federal laws, or so said the government when John C. Calhoun suggested it. The proper way to do it is for Congress to remove marijuana from that list - it clearly does not belong there, and was included because of early 20th Century hysteria - and then and only then allow States to do as they will, as provided by the Constitution.

But if we are going to have a federal system, it needs to be uniform and conform to the Constitution and relevant jurisprudence.

Posted by: Adjoran at January 16, 2014 11:35 AM (473jB)

88 >>And, IMHO pot is way worse for the brain the alcohol. I figured that out in the 80's. It makes you stupid, slow witted, and forgetful. What exactly do you think alcohol does? If you pressed the "makes you sexy, smart and funny" key you hit the wrong key.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 16, 2014 11:35 AM (g1DWB)

89 >>> Would a theater major wear anything else? Bright yellow with purple stripes on the sleeves, tied loosely around his neck.

Posted by: fluffonutta at January 16, 2014 11:35 AM (Ua6T/)

@57Why do pro-legalization people need to say 'tax the hell out of it?' If it's okay to use, what justifies taxing it?

---------------

Same reason proponents claimed that the California lottery would provide money for schools (spoiler - it never did) - to get people who might otherwise be inclined to disagree with legalization on moral grounds to come around due to a supposed societal benefit. In this case, keeping their state from going bankrupt.

Posted by: junior at January 16, 2014 11:35 AM (UWFpX)

91 If I ever saw someone getting a blowjob while simultaneously smoking pot, I would beat that person to death with my King James Bible.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 11:35 AM (CJjw5)

92 84 BRING BACK QUAALUDES!! --- I think Ludes explained why we used to wear bellbottom pants.

Posted by: Denis Leary at January 16, 2014 11:35 AM (/Crba)

93 If it's okay to use, what justifies taxing it?

I feel the same way about electrcity. And Sudafed. And donuts.

Posted by: HR at January 16, 2014 11:35 AM (ZKzrr)

94 I'm allergic to pot. Gets me violently ill just smelling it. I've had to leave concerts because of it. Of course, if I dared to light a cigarette, I would get thrown out with extreme malice, but if I lit up a joint? ********** Swear to Gaia this actually happened. Went to an Aerosmith concert at the MGM Grand. A fist fight broke out because someone lit up a cigarette. I was all wtf? And--a surprising amount of fans with oxygen tanks. Gad. Steven Tyler still puts on a great show though but I once sat on a plane with a guy that claimed to be a blood transfusion expert for I think The Rolling Stones. Could have been complete bs--but what the hell--it was an interesting ride.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 16, 2014 11:35 AM (RJMhd)

95 Btw - Crowder is wearing a sweater.

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 11:36 AM (UHS5k)

96 Here's were I'm torn. I'm really in favor of legalizing pot. But so many people who feel the same way are totally obnoxious and want to be able to smoke it anywhere everywhere, including places cigarettes can't be smoked. Plus they're filthy hippies. They make winning over conservatives much, much harder.

Posted by: I need a cool new sig at January 16, 2014 11:36 AM (q177U)

97 I want pharmaceutical grade methamphetamine sold over the counter again.

Posted by: toby928© at January 16, 2014 11:36 AM (QupBk)

98 hear that, but this is like the ban on peanuts because some people are allergic. Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 03:32 PM (/FnUH) I think the ban on peanuts may have more to do with the liability people are trying to avoid. If someone with an allergy has a violent reaction to mj at concert where it is illegal to smoke but not enforced when people are smoking dope, someone may have a viable lawsuit. Then again, it might be like the cherry pit in the cherry pie, the pecan shell in the pecan pie (people hate pies),or the chicken bone in the el pollo burrito.

Posted by: Dr. Pug at January 16, 2014 11:36 AM (Qev5V)

99 Waiting on e-doob.

We legalize pot, but ban e-cigs just because they look like something else.

geniuses.

Posted by: wiserbud at January 16, 2014 11:36 AM (NXg/k)

100 Heh, dude, I cannot tell you all of the trouble that quaaludes created, it would take too long and my hand would cramp up from fatigue. But hell, I say we just ban cigs and legalize the pot from coast to coast. I need a change of pace.

Posted by: Drider at January 16, 2014 11:36 AM (/VmYa)

101 And, IMHO pot is way worse for the brain the alcohol. I figured that out in the 80's. It makes you stupid, slow witted, and forgetful.

It does wonders for you motivation and ambition as well.

Posted by: eleven at January 16, 2014 11:36 AM (KXm42)

102 I once sat on a plane with a guy that claimed to be a blood transfusion expert for I think The Rolling Stones. Could have been complete bs--but what the hell--it was an interesting ride. --- That is why Keith Richards cannot be killed by conventional weapons.

Posted by: Del Preston at January 16, 2014 11:37 AM (/Crba)

103 >>> Would a theater major wear anything else? Bright yellow with purple stripes on the sleeves, tied loosely around his neck. Posted by: fluffonutta at January 16, 2014 03:35 PM (Ua6T/) ------------------------------- That is stupid, inaccurate and hateful. Sweater style, if a sweater is worn at all is dictated by the wardrobe artist in consultation with the director.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 11:37 AM (CJjw5)

104 Oops forgot to add--which is why Steven Tyler probably gets away with doing drugs--and you can't.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 16, 2014 11:37 AM (RJMhd)

105 >>>They are selling pot precisely because it is illegal -- you can charge a premium for contraband. If they are not exacting a criminal premium on their drug endeavors, they will find a new avenue of criminality which does pay them that premium.<<<

Well, Raylan, I am the outlaw. And this is my world. And my world has a high cost of living.

Posted by: the other Crowder -- Boyd Crowder at January 16, 2014 11:37 AM (feDpV)

106 97 I want pharmaceutical grade methamphetamine sold over the counter again. Posted by: toby928Â© at January 16, 2014 03:36 PM (QupBk) Me, too. If potheads can have their pot, why can't speedfreaks have their speed?

Posted by: Dr. Pug at January 16, 2014 11:37 AM (Qev5V)

107 If I ever saw someone getting a blowjob while simultaneously smoking pot, I would beat that person to death with my King James Bible. How you gonna do that when I'm in the carpool lane?

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 11:38 AM (UHS5k)

108 I had a psychotic break on pot..but I'd been up like 30 hours at the time. I got so freaked out I busted myself.

Posted by: Lady Billingsgate at January 16, 2014 11:38 AM (GdalM)

109 BTW, I am getting suspicious. I have been sponsoring this blog for ten years, and I see very little progress in the quality of the writing. If anything, it seems to be regressing. This could be the work of a six year old I think. (or has this joke been done to death already on other threads?)

Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at January 16, 2014 11:38 AM (LWu6U)

110 >>hear that, but this is like the ban on peanuts because some people are allergic. Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 03:32 PM (/FnUH) << Having a bad day? Peanut sensitivity is a rare but lethal allergy.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at January 16, 2014 11:38 AM (5xmd7)

111

>>Not a State form BATF

.There is a form you have to sign in CO to buy legal pot plus showing your ID. Out of State ID's can only buy a quarter ounce though from what a friend told me. Plus they now have Pot amnesty stations at almost all CO airports.

What I was saying is if you fill out the State form to buy pot you have just rendered yourself ineligible to buy a gun due to the question about pot on the federal form.

Posted by: Registered Voter at January 16, 2014 11:38 AM (Hdbf3)

112 But if we are going to have a federal system, it needs to be uniform and conform to the Constitution and relevant jurisprudence.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Posted by: President Perfekt at January 16, 2014 11:38 AM (YEelc)

113

Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at January 16, 2014 03:38 PM (LWu6U)

only on the weekend Gaming Thread

Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 11:39 AM (bStrg)

114 What exactly do you think alcohol does? If you pressed the "makes you sexy, smart and funny" key you hit the wrong key. Posted by: JackStraw at January 16, 2014 03:35 PM (g1DWB) ------------------------- Obviously you never seen me after I've had a couple of drinks.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 11:39 AM (CJjw5)

115 "One thing I question is the claim that pot increases the incidence of, and exacerbates the severity of, schizophrenia and psychotic breaks. Correlation does not prove causation -- and I hope I'm not too out of line in suggesting that people strongly drawn to any kind of neurochemical escape, be it alcohol, pot, or pills, tend to be a little fucked up." The current legitimate work on this question does not claim that pot causes psychosis, only that there is a correlation. It's a chicken and egg question that no one yet has the answer, too.

Posted by: NotCoach at January 16, 2014 11:39 AM (rsudF)

116 And, IMHO pot is way worse for the brain the alcohol. I figured that out in the 80's. It makes you stupid, slow witted, and forgetful. What exactly do you think alcohol does? If you pressed the "makes you sexy, smart and funny" key you hit the wrong key. Posted by: JackStraw But it does. Here, hold muh beer & watch this.....

Posted by: rickb223 at January 16, 2014 11:39 AM (cUARf)

117 I'm going to get a pet bobcat and feed it PCP. Just leave the room.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at January 16, 2014 11:39 AM (5xmd7)

118 How you gonna do that when I'm in the carpool lane? Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 03:38 PM (UHS5k) --------------- You have to exit sometime.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 11:40 AM (CJjw5)

119 Every state should legalize pot.

Posted by: Assn of Pizza Hut franchisees at January 16, 2014 11:40 AM (VndSC)

120 I'm interested to know what the state will do to protect private employees who fail drug tests because of contact highs, and how they will prove - empirically - that they were or were not smoking.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at January 16, 2014 11:40 AM (fwARV)

121 "For 5 points, Bob, answer this question. What is your name, Bob?"

Posted by: Achmed at January 16, 2014 11:40 AM (qfNFY)

122 Roger that. I knew there would be some way to cross reference the pot versus gun purchase.

Posted by: Heywood Jablowme at January 16, 2014 11:40 AM (jsWA8)

123 Legalize it all. We're fucking adults. If I want to get baked or off my face on whatever fucking chemical I choose then that is no-one's fucking business but my own. Kill any fucker who opposes your individual rights

Posted by: Freedom Man at January 16, 2014 11:40 AM (KOp/H)

124 I suspect my neighbor below me is doing marijuana. At least once a week my walk-in closet ineplicably reeks of pot odor. How does the legalization crowd propose we deal with that?

Posted by: Serious Cat at January 16, 2014 11:40 AM (UyYYt)

125 I'm allergic to pot. Gets me violently ill just smelling it.
Posted by: wiserbud at January 16, 2014 03:31 PM (NXg/k)

I had to lol at this statement combined with your name. Reminded me of a line from this classic song from The Pharcyde:

y2u.be/zmLdQIYf4WY

Posted by: mugiwara at January 16, 2014 11:40 AM (W7ffl)

126 Take it from someone who has more than enough relatives who have both been substance abusers and who also have had a laundry list of psychological problems, the psych problems pretty much came first, and the substance abuse /self medication followed. On the plus side, dope seemed to do just as much for their problems as the most expensive prescription drugs ever did. Sometimes I think that the MD's mainly object to the competition.

Posted by: Tom Servo at January 16, 2014 11:41 AM (8Fa5Z)

127 What exactly do you think alcohol does? If you pressed the "makes you sexy, smart and funny" key you hit the wrong key.

hey, how else was I supposed to get women to sleep with me?

Rufies are waaaay to expensive.

Posted by: wiserbud at January 16, 2014 11:41 AM (NXg/k)

128

I think nobody will ever make a profit selling pot in the smoking form since you can just grow it yourself, dry it yourself, wtfever.

But legalizing it does open the door for offering prepared foods that utilize the herb. I could see a bakery offering a wide variety of items, such as pot wedding cakes that gays can't buy.

Posted by: Bigby's Mitts at January 16, 2014 11:41 AM (3ZtZW)

129 Crowder is wearing a sweater. Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 03:36 PM (UHS5k) Joos like sweaters. At least he looks like a joo.

Posted by: The crazy in the video at January 16, 2014 11:41 AM (mETGQ)

130 Weed also reduces the # of deaths due to traffic accidents, due to the low speeds.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 16, 2014 11:42 AM (DpEwG)

131 You have to exit sometime. True. Won't be long, either, as w hen getting road head, I like to nut as I hit a speed bump.

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 11:42 AM (UHS5k)

132 108 I had a psychotic break on pot..but I'd been up like 30 hours at the time. I got so freaked out I busted myself. Posted by: Lady Billingsgate at January 16, 2014 03:38 PM (GdalM) I rarely smoked pot but the last time I did which was over 25 years ago and had very little, I became extremely paranoid. I had to go hide and tell myself over and over for about 2 hours that it was just the drugs and that it would peak and go away. It wasn't easy.

Posted by: Dr. Pug at January 16, 2014 11:42 AM (Qev5V)

133 121 "For 5 points, Bob, answer this question. What is your name, Bob?" --- I listened to Black Sabbath on 78 speed and I SAW GOD!

Posted by: Bob at January 16, 2014 11:42 AM (/Crba)

134 102 I once sat on a plane with a guy that claimed to be a blood transfusion expert for I think The Rolling Stones. Could have been complete bs--but what the hell--it was an interesting ride. --- That is why Keith Richards cannot be killed by conventional weapons. Posted by: Del Preston at January 16, 2014 03:37 PM (/Crba) ******** LOL! Wonder what his "half-life" is?

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 16, 2014 11:42 AM (RJMhd)

135 Every state should legalize pot.

Posted by: Assn of Pizza Hut franchisees at January 16, 2014 03:40 PM (VndSC)

I giggled. Don't know how many times in HS we ordered $30 worth breadsticks (and that was the only thing we ordered)

Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 11:42 AM (bStrg)

136 hey, how else was I supposed to get women to sleep with me? Does this handkerchief smell like chloroform to you?

Posted by: toby928© at January 16, 2014 11:42 AM (QupBk)

137

124 I suspect my neighbor below me is doing marijuana. At least once a week my walk-in closet ineplicably reeks of pot odor.

How does the legalization crowd propose we deal with that?<<<

Get a pet ferret and put its cage in the closet. You'll never notice that pot smell again.

Posted by: Roy at January 16, 2014 11:42 AM (VndSC)

138 And away we go.

Posted by: joncelli, predenounced for your pleasure at January 16, 2014 11:42 AM (RD7QR)

139 legalize it, subsidize it, tax it.... that seems to be the consensus. As a former smoker and drinker. I prefer pot over alcohol.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humantiarian at January 16, 2014 11:42 AM (HVff2)

140 "Joos like sweaters. At least he looks like a joo." You would think that with all the smart people in Ann Arbor, they would come up with a way to identify the Joos. Maybe a star or something sewn to their clothing.

Posted by: jwest at January 16, 2014 11:43 AM (u2a4R)

141 I think nobody will ever make a profit selling pot in the smoking form since you can just grow it yourself, dry it yourself, wtfever. Yeah, everyone knows you can't make money growing things.

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 11:43 AM (UHS5k)

142 Pot is worse than alcohol cause one's a social drug, one's a lame drug. The fixation on technical measures of what makes something "worse" is silly.

Posted by: JL at January 16, 2014 11:43 AM (VRsv0)

143 >>hear that, but this is like the ban on peanuts because some people are allergic.

I'm not saying pot shouldn't be legal. I'm just saying that the whole "second-hand smoke" argument becomes moot if pot smokers are forced to endure the same rules as tobacco smokers.

I've never seen someone thrown out of a concert for smoking a joint.

Posted by: wiserbud at January 16, 2014 11:43 AM (NXg/k)

144 I don't see how arguing "alcohol is worse" helps the pot argument. Because if one thing is legal, we're obligated to legalize everything less deadly than that? I mean legalizing heroin would probably end up killing fewer people than alcohol.

Posted by: Paul at January 16, 2014 11:43 AM (9qDRl)

145 Pot will never be decriminalized. I mean, do you think people won't be prosecuted for selling without a license and not collecting the tax on it? There will still be moonshining, bootlegging, and smuggling just to avoid those sorts of payments. And I would suspect that users who have knowingly purchased from such a black market will still receive criminal sanctions along with the black marketeers. Which would be remarkably similar to what we have today, but only for different reasons.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - We Have the HRC Designer Vindictivenous Line Exclusively! at January 16, 2014 11:43 AM (hLRSq)

146

This is my thrilled face

-_-

I. Don't. Want. Potheads. Coming. Here. Dammit.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/i][/u][/b] at January 16, 2014 11:43 AM (4df7R)

147 What exactly do you think alcohol does? If you pressed the "makes you sexy, smart and funny" key you hit the wrong key.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 16, 2014 03:35 PM (g1DWB)

Well, funny anyway.

Posted by: Anxiety-ridden introvert at January 16, 2014 11:43 AM (vgIRn)

148 BRING BACK QUAALUDES!!

Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 03:34 PM (bStrg)

------------------------------------------------

I know some people snickered at this, but this is the road we're traveling. Yeah, why not legalize quaaludes too. And how about meth, cocaine, heroin? They're just used for "recreational" purposes too.

Where does it stop?

Posted by: Soona at January 16, 2014 11:43 AM (SneYa)

149 How does the legalization crowd propose we deal with that?

"Leave your building."

Posted by: HR at January 16, 2014 11:44 AM (ZKzrr)

150 We're fucking adults. If I want to get baked or off my face on whatever fucking chemical I choose then that is no-one's fucking business but my own.

Kill any fucker who opposes your individual rights

And if your decision to get baked causes you to take actions that harm others? Is that person within their rights to kill you?

Posted by: NR Pax at January 16, 2014 11:44 AM (ODsL5)

151 "96 Here's were I'm torn. I'm really in favor of legalizing pot. But so many people who feel the same way are totally obnoxious and want to be able to smoke it anywhere everywhere, including places cigarettes can't be smoked. Plus they're filthy hippies. They make winning over conservatives much, much harder. Posted by: I need a cool new sig at January 16, 2014 03:36 PM (q177U) " And that's the problem, isn't it? I think it's a state's rights issue, and each state needs to decide for themselves. But it's not something I ever want to be involved in promoting because the biggest cheerleaders aren't libertarians or conservatives, but ignorant Commies that just want to get stoned.

Posted by: NotCoach at January 16, 2014 11:44 AM (rsudF)

152 >> What exactly do you think alcohol does? If you pressed the "makes you sexy, smart and funny" key you hit the wrong key. Posted by: JackStraw I should clarify -- pot makes you stupid for days afterward. alcohol, if anything makes you smarter the next day (at least i always feel smarter when i look back on what an ass i was the night before,) but pot lingers.

Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at January 16, 2014 11:44 AM (LWu6U)

153 Posted by: JL You're high right now, aren't you?

Posted by: toby928© at January 16, 2014 11:44 AM (QupBk)

154 If someone has an anxiety disorder, would you rather they spent their days stoned on pot or stoned on Xanax? I have an opinion as to what society I'd prefer.

Posted by: Oschisms at January 16, 2014 11:45 AM (+w1hQ)

155 >>Dave's not here. It's Dave man. . . .Dude, Dave's not here. No man, it's DAVE!

Posted by: Weirddave at January 16, 2014 11:45 AM (N/cFh)

156 My condo is my property.

Posted by: Serious Cat at January 16, 2014 11:45 AM (iO3BG)

157 Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at January 16, 2014 03:43 PM (4df7R)

It's New Hampshire, who the fuck cares about New Hampshire?

Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 11:45 AM (bStrg)

158 The Dr. Phyllis Boniface is a pretty hot doctor. In case no one has yet pointed it out.

Posted by: zombie at January 16, 2014 11:45 AM (+cx5n)

159 It's New Hampshire, who the fuck cares about New Hampshire?

Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 03:45 PM (bStrg)

Well ME.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/i][/u][/b] at January 16, 2014 11:45 AM (4df7R)

160 Taxing the shit out of it will make it more expensive than what we sell it for.

Posted by: Drug Cartels at January 16, 2014 11:46 AM (mETGQ)

161 Every state should legalize pot. Posted by: Assn of Pizza Hut franchisees at January 16, 2014 03:40 PM (VndSC) I giggled. Don't know how many times in HS we ordered $30 worth breadsticks (and that was the only thing we ordered) Back in the day, $20 would get a brown paper grocery bag full of White Castles.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 16, 2014 11:47 AM (cUARf)

162 Legal pot will be to the libertarian party what right-to-work is to the unions.

Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at January 16, 2014 11:47 AM (LWu6U)

163 One thing I question is the claim that pot increases the incidence of, and exacerbates the severity of, schizophrenia and psychotic breaks. Correlation does not prove causation -- and I hope I'm not too out of line in suggesting that people strongly drawn to any kind of neurochemical escape, be it alcohol, pot, or pills, tend to be a little fucked up. That is, people seeking illicit drugs are often basically self-medicating, and that introduces the possibility (or probability) that they have a pre-existing condition they feel the need to medicate. I think it's way too much of a coincidence that Tsarnaev, Holmes, Cho and Loughner were all potheads and pretty serious potheads. If they were self-medicating...well, how did that work out, then? You mentioned one of the big oppositions to pot on the podcast, ace. That is a lack of testing. It turns out our libertarian overlords are A-OK with police having wide discretion as to whether they think a positive drug test should be prosecuted or not. A breath test for alcohol is pretty definitive. There isn't room for the police to say, "No, that's OK white college student, I can tell you're cool to drive." But that's exactly what they can say for a positive pot test. There's another problem with this. Libertarianism is based on the fact that we are held responsible for our bad choices. With the marijuana cart being placed before the welfare horse, we'll just have more welfare recipients (and "unemployed" demanding more unemployment benefits) who just want to subsist on government Cheetos. We're really getting nothing over this fad. Let's get rid of some welfare at least.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 16, 2014 11:47 AM (T0NGe)

164

>>>>Dave's not here.

It's Dave man.
.
.
.Dude, Dave's not here.

No man, it's DAVE!

.Dave's not here!

Posted by: Tommy Chong at January 16, 2014 11:47 AM (Hdbf3)

165 160 It's New Hampshire, who the fuck cares about New Hampshire? Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 03:45 PM (bStrg) Well ME. --- I'd say "come down here", but Louisiana is considering this horseshit too.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 16, 2014 11:47 AM (/Crba)

166 Tried pot a few times in my yoot. It was nice, but it made me thirsty. So, being at a party, I would drink beer.

I preferred the beer, and back in 1975 you could get a 12 pack of Buckhorn for $1.75

Posted by: Bruce at January 16, 2014 11:47 AM (tqqFn)

167 I take issue in hangovers telling you to slow down next time, it means that your retarded ass doesn't grasp the concept of why you drink water when getting loaded

Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 11:47 AM (bStrg)

168 But if we are going to have a federal system, it needs to be uniform and conform to the Constitution and relevant jurisprudence. Posted by: Adjoran at January 16, 2014 03:35 PM (473jB) The US Court system enshrines the idea of precedent. And on Jan 17, 1920, the US used a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw an intoxicating substance, called alcohol. They did this because they felt a LAW was not enough... as Congress did not have the power to pass such a Law. So, under what Constitutional Authority... under what explicit power within the Constitution, can the CONGRESS write a LAW, making Pot illegal? Especially as the Precedent was set that it needed a Constitutional Amendment?

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 16, 2014 11:47 AM (lZBBB)

169 What's this? Make decisions based on information and after reasonable discussion and giving thought and consideration to costs and benefits, including the balance of personal freedom and societal harmony? What are we, rocket surgeons?

Posted by: alexthechick - Come to us, oh mighty SMOD at January 16, 2014 11:48 AM (VtjlW)

170 What I was saying is if you fill out the State form to buy pot you have just rendered yourself ineligible to buy a gun due to the questionabout pot on the federal form. Posted by: Registered Voter at January 16, 2014 03:38 PM (Hdbf3) And we know how well those gun laws work!

Posted by: Carrie Nation, hatchet city, bitches at January 16, 2014 11:48 AM (1Y+hH)

171
Pass the dutchie to the left hand side!

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 16, 2014 11:48 AM (n0DEs)

172 One harm pot doesn't expose people to is the pain of a hangover. That's the high point of it for me (pun intended.) I think the no-hangover thing is why so many stinking drunks go apeshit over us responsible, occasional smokers.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at January 16, 2014 11:48 AM (7ObY1)

173 I'm going to give out free samples.

Posted by: RWC - Krokodil Importing Conglomerate at January 16, 2014 11:48 AM (fWAjv)

174

Getting high is fun, and sometimes interesting, especially when listening to music or watching a movie.

Drinking is fun, but can turn people into lunatics and completely fuck someone's body up, not to mention causing blackouts.

Legalize the stuff.

Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz Christies at January 16, 2014 11:48 AM (xggaJ)

175 >>hey, how else was I supposed to get women to sleep with me? >>Rufies are waaaay to expensive. I see. So you're saying alcohol makes you delusional as well.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 16, 2014 11:48 AM (g1DWB)

176 Back in the day, $20 would get a brown paper grocery bag full of White Castles.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 16, 2014 03:47 PM (cUARf)

still does, still slides right through you but being stoned does make White Castle actually palatable

Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 11:48 AM (bStrg)

177 We're really getting nothing over this fad. Let's get rid of some welfare at least. So you are saying we should legalize crack and meth?

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 11:49 AM (UHS5k)

178 The argument that drives me batty is when pro-pot legalization point out all the harms of the "War on Drugs" as if they go away if pot is legalized. They do not! There's ALWAYS a worse drug that will be illegal. And the same exact type of people will traffic that drug. And the police will use the same tactics as always. Meth, cocaine, heroin, krokodil, lsd, and all the other drugs that will wreck you like pot won't will always drive the drug war. So stop acting like the drug war goes away if you "legalize it". If it's your argument that you legalize EVERYTHING, fine. That's at least logically defensible, though I argue with all our safety nets it's failure personified. But stop bringing up the drug war as a reason to legalize pot alone.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 16, 2014 11:49 AM (P7Wsr)

179 oh good here come X to call people fascist...

Ace the problem with the way "decriminalization" is being done is it mainstreams the idea of tolerance for Presidential "discretion" at law enforcement.

You want the GOP majority pushing hard to pass this?

Wrap it up in devolution of the CSA of 1970 and FDA's regulatory power on intoxicants back to the states on a Xth amendment path...

but the "Stoner Nation" is not advocating a principled stand in the war on drugs, it is trying to end the war on DRUG....

one drug.

Leaving the regulatory fiat, Wickard, asset forfeiture abuse, etc etc etc all in place with a cherry of non-codfied thuggery and political coercion potential through uneven application of the law extant.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 11:50 AM (TE35l)

180 124 I suspect my neighbor below me is doing marijuana. At least once a week my walk-in closet ineplicably reeks of pot odor. How does the legalization crowd propose we deal with that? Posted by: Serious Cat at January 16, 2014 03:40 PM (UyYYt) They don't. They don't even propose treating pot smoke as seriously as cigarette smoke. This whole fad has not been well-thought-out.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 16, 2014 11:50 AM (T0NGe)

181 If were going to legalize it, why wouldn't you legalize a controlled, oral dose of THC and other cannibiods that could be sold by prescription or behind the counter like cough syrup? The worse case would be to encourage another smoking habit utilizing uncontrolled blends of mj grown god knows where.

Posted by: Jean at January 16, 2014 11:50 AM (4JkHl)

182 >>>If it turned out to be true, would it change your position? nope. Here's why: People are going to die. I no longer will trust these arguments along the lines of "If we can save JUST ONE life..." We can save just one life by banning all guns. Certainly, we'd save one life. But at one cost? At the cost of our freedom. At the cost of the government treating us like we are rational, capable adults (until we prove otherwise). People are going to die and ruin their lives through a whole plethora of vices. Freedom-seeking people routinely complain as the legally tolerated blood alcohol level gets reduced -- there must be *some* latitude, after all. Why do we take that position? Because we're being grown-up about it. Yes, it would save lives if you lowered the BAC limit down to 0.001. It would definitely save lives. Studies (real ones) show that. And yes, we can pass all sorts of laws to try to make the world as safe as we can imagine. But at what cost? Sugar is indeed harmful, at least at the levels the American public consumes it. The human body was just not built to process so much sugar -- the apples of yesterday barely had any sugar, just a touch to please the tongue. Now we've bred them to be bursting with sugar. Some people's bodies are good at processing high levels of blood sugar, but many people's are not, and hence, at some point, their overworked livers just quit on them, and they become diabetic. So should we join Michael Bloomberg's crusade to improve the general health of the nation by passing laws (upon ourselves) limiting how much sugar we can purchase at any meal? People are going to die. The most crucial imperative is not to extend our lives as long as possible by limiting our freedom to do anything unhealthy or "bad." The most crucial imperative is to extend our liberty during those brief years allotted to us by biology or God.

Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 11:51 AM (/FnUH)

183 If you do smoke pot in Ann Arbor, you'll probably be hungry. Try the West End Grill. Excellent food, nice atmosphere, reservations a must and I'm pretty sure they don't allow any Joos.

Posted by: jwest at January 16, 2014 11:51 AM (u2a4R)

184 Nice that they are going to have ATM's that accept their welfare benefits card. Get cash and dope in one stop.

Posted by: RWC at January 16, 2014 11:51 AM (fWAjv)

185 They don't. They don't even propose treating pot smoke as seriously as cigarette smoke.

This whole fad has not been well-thought-out. Posted by: AmishDude

As long as you're not smoking an E cig too, I'm cool with it.

XOX
Rahmmmy

Posted by: Bruce at January 16, 2014 11:51 AM (tqqFn)

186 If it's your argument that you legalize EVERYTHING, fine. That's at least logically defensible, though I argue with all our safety nets it's failure personified. But stop bringing up the drug war as a reason to legalize pot alone. Posted by: bonhomme at January 16, 2014 03:49 PM (P7Wsr) No, just make everything illegal. Then enforce or not depending on your mood. A little uncertainty in life is a good thing. Keep you on your toes.

Posted by: Carrie Nation, hatchet city, bitches at January 16, 2014 11:51 AM (1Y+hH)

187 There was a story in the local paper this morning about a new pot shop in Carbondale. The headline was "Pot Beacon" but I read it as "Pot Bacon" and thought, "Holy shit!!! That shit's got to be illegal!."

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 16, 2014 11:51 AM (XUKZU)

188 148 What exactly do you think alcohol does? If you pressed the "makes you sexy, smart and funny" key you hit the wrong key. Posted by: JackStraw at January 16, 2014 03:35 PM (g1DWB) Well... it does seem to make women prettier..... if a Man applies it liberally to himself...

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 16, 2014 11:51 AM (lZBBB)

189 7 Brandon in BR at January 16, 2014 03:20 PM (/Crba)

Last time I was in LA Spicollis were ostentatiously smoking joints at the Library...

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 11:51 AM (TE35l)

190 Wait until you get the body cavity search because a drug dog hits on you?

Posted by: Jean at January 16, 2014 11:52 AM (4JkHl)

191

>>If it's your argument that you legalize EVERYTHING, fine. That's at least logically defensible, though I argue with all our safety nets it's failure personified. But stop bringing up the drug war as a reason to legalize pot alone.

.Arguably we would have already won the War on Drugs if we had taken all of the money spent on law enforcement and incarnation and spent it on treatment. We would have a fully staffed drug treatment center on nearly every street corner in every major city by now.

We certainly couldn't have done worse.

Posted by: Registered voter at January 16, 2014 11:52 AM (Hdbf3)

192 That is, people seeking illicit drugs are often basically self-medicating, and that introduces the possibility (or probability) that they have a pre-existing condition they feel the need to medicate. Try living with SUD (Serotonin Uptake Disorder.) Try living with the constant, chronic, diabling insomnia. Try having a body that can't regulate it's own temperature. Trust me, you don't. The legal drugs turn you into a fucking zombie and make you sound and act drunk...which is NOT conducive to keeping one's job (among other things.) Pot is the single most effective treatment I've ever found for my disorder, and my government makes me a criminal for pursuing it. Just like they made a criminal of my brother when he was dying of cancer and pot was the only relief he got while dying a painful, horrible death. (RIP Tony my brother!)

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at January 16, 2014 11:52 AM (7ObY1)

193 So you are saying we should legalize crack and meth? Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 03:49 PM (UHS5k) Ask a lot of the pro-pot crowd. They'll say yes. Like Charles C.W. Cooke, for instance. Now...if you're a doctrinaire libertarian, sure. That make sense. IF you don't have an elaborate soul-sucking welfare state. But in our society, we just don't let the stupid methheads die. No, no, we have to give them housing and a stipend.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 16, 2014 11:52 AM (T0NGe)

194 "One harm pot doesn't expose people to is the pain of a hangover. "

I'm not sure if that is the rate-limiting step for many people, but it certainly is for me. I stop long before I want to, precisely because I really, really dislike hangovers.

And spending the night in jail...but mostly hangovers.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 16, 2014 11:52 AM (QFxY5)

195 "We can save just one life by banning all guns. Certainly, we'd save one life. Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 03:51 PM (/FnUH)" Banning guns would cause more lives to be taken. And it wouldn't eliminate the guns.

Posted by: NotCoach at January 16, 2014 11:52 AM (rsudF)

196 I think nobody will ever make a profit selling pot in the smoking form since you can just grow it yourself, dry it yourself, wtfever.

Posted by: Bigby's Mitts at January 16, 2014 03:41 PM (3ZtZW)

You're forgetting that many people are inherently lazy. People can also grow their own tobacco, vegetables, and livestock, but they don't, because someone else will do it for them.

Posted by: Country Singer at January 16, 2014 11:53 AM (L8r/r)

197 How does the legalization crowd propose we deal with that? Posted by: Serious Cat at January 16, 2014 03:40 PM (UyYYt) Uh.... talk to your landlord? Apparently there is something wrong with the ventilation...

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 16, 2014 11:53 AM (lZBBB)

198 So you're saying alcohol makes you delusional as well.

Wait.... you're talking about me drinking the alcohol?

Oh.

That's totally different.

never mind.

Posted by: wiserbud at January 16, 2014 11:53 AM (NXg/k)

199 Dope is a good example of something that localism should handle. It's certainly not a federal issue to me. If your state, or county, or city wants to outlaw it, fine, people can move to a place more fitting their lifestyle.

Posted by: toby928© at January 16, 2014 11:53 AM (QupBk)

200 >>>Ace the problem with the way "decriminalization" is being done is it mainstreams the idea of tolerance for Presidential "discretion" at law enforcement. every day there is a new problem with it, I notice. I agree that's a problem, but I sort of suspect it's not your main objection, as this is a newly-minted objection.

Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 11:53 AM (/FnUH)

201 Since we're well past the 100 comment mark - I have been trying to make the transition and I have come to the conclusion that ECigs are like getting half a hand-job. Nothing at all like having a real smoke.

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 11:53 AM (UHS5k)

202 We can save just one life by banning all guns. Certainly, we'd save one life. But at one cost? At the cost of our freedom. But the argument the pro-gun crowd makes, and it's backed up by numbers, is that you will, in fact, save one life, NET by keeping guns legal. What's the net result on drug legalization?

Posted by: AmishDude at January 16, 2014 11:54 AM (T0NGe)

203 Posted by: AmishDude at January 16, 2014 03:52 PM (T0NGe)

The man speaks the truth. And exposes the real motives of many so-called "libertarians."

[too bad he's a lawyer]

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 16, 2014 11:54 AM (QFxY5)

204 48 ace at January 16, 2014 03:29 PM (/FnUH)

No argument there so why not attack the structural roots of the problem by demanding Eric My People Holder sue CO Ace?

This angle of attack by Libertine nation strikes me as similar to the Glee Mafia's subversion of Libertarian minded GOPers and Capital R Luap Nor Cultists to empower their activists.

SCotUS spiking DOMA as Xth amendment business to then allow attacks demanding national recognition based on XIVth arguments is a bit three card monte eh?

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 11:54 AM (TE35l)

205 Regardless of freedom, nobody can convince me that smoking it is a good idea.

Posted by: John F Not Kerry @jfd1965 at January 16, 2014 11:54 AM (HF2US)

206 >>>IF you don't have an elaborate soul-sucking welfare state. But in our society, we just don't let the stupid methheads die. No, no, we have to give them housing and a stipend. I'm deeply suspicious of these arguments that our lack of freedom in many spheres is a strong argument for limiting our freedom in others.

Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 11:54 AM (/FnUH)

207 191 Wait until you get the body cavity search because a drug dog hits on you? Posted by: Jean at January 16, 2014 03:52 PM (4JkHl) ****** That's why they should have drug CATS!! Think about it.

Posted by: Doobie Hits for $100 at January 16, 2014 11:54 AM (RJMhd)

208 Kill any fucker who opposes your individual rights

Posted by: Freedom Man at January 16, 2014 03:40 PM (KOp/H)

------------

oh gee whiz

Posted by: grammie winger at January 16, 2014 11:54 AM (P6QsQ)

209

Posted by: Jean at January 16, 2014 03:50 PM (4JkHl)

there should never be oral pills of THC, it should always be done anally

Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 11:55 AM (bStrg)

210 I want the libertarian GOP wing to use this as a issue to win back the young voters, then the establishment can screw them over in conference committee like have do to us fiscal and social conservatives for years.

Posted by: Jean at January 16, 2014 11:55 AM (4JkHl)

211 Ever ride sober as a passenger with stoned persons? In a big city? During rush hour? Interesting experience to say the least.

Posted by: YIKES! at January 16, 2014 11:55 AM (mETGQ)

212 I've never woken up beside Jabba after smoking, drinking on the other hand....

Posted by: Heywood Jablowme at January 16, 2014 11:55 AM (jsWA8)

213 I prefer pot to booze for two reasons. One, no hangover. Two, pot is free.

Posted by: mugiwara at January 16, 2014 11:55 AM (FO6VR)

214 Legalize pot if you want. But I want laws also assuring me that I don't have to pay for the enevitable treatment center costs or the welfare of keeping your worthless stoned asses fed and housed.

Posted by: Soona at January 16, 2014 11:55 AM (SneYa)

215 >>Wait.... you're talking about me drinking the alcohol? >>Oh. >>That's totally different. >>never mind. And I'm pretty sure chloroform and zip ties aren't generally considered alcohol. But hey, if it works for you and you haven't been caught yet, its all good.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 16, 2014 11:55 AM (g1DWB)

216 So you are saying we should legalize crack and meth? Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 03:49 PM (UHS5k) ----------------------------- Yep. And heroin, cocaine, Krokodil, bath salts - everything. Society's rules are based on line-drawing. I find it extremely self-serving that the potheads want their vice legalized, but would draw the line at the "hard" drugs. Fuck you, Shaggy. Who are you to tell people what they can and can't do? I thought you were about the freedom, man... Bring on the needles on the playground and meth zombies going apeshit on pedestrians. We already have laws that criminalize bad behavior. Don't criminalize the millions of heroin junkies, crankster gangsters and crackheads that can handle their shit over the monkeyshines of an irresponsible few.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 11:56 AM (CJjw5)

217 there should never be oral pills of THC, it should always be done anally --- I've heard that same thing about opium.

Posted by: Jerry Stahl at January 16, 2014 11:56 AM (/Crba)

218

You mean they all wonÂ’t become realtors and pipefitters once their illegal market dries up? I thought that was the whole plan?

Posted by: CJ at January 16, 2014 11:56 AM (9KqcB)

219 Paranoia and pot as a party platform could have a certain synergy.

Posted by: Doobie Hits for $100 at January 16, 2014 11:56 AM (RJMhd)

220 Legalization reduces criminality in that it means people using marijuana are not criminals. I agree that many/most pot dealers will find other illegal activities to occupy their criminal minds. But not all Â– some dealers are strictly servicing what they see as an honest demand. I would expect some of these to try their hands at legal selling. I donÂ’t understand the mindset that says that legalization will automatically create a whole population of stoners. I think most people are not interested in pot and wonÂ’t even try it. By Â“mostÂ” I mean somewhere north of 50%. Most teens who want to try it are already doing so Â– thatÂ’s obvious, right? By the same token I donÂ’t think heroin legalization would result in lots of heroin users (I get that heroin is a heavy drug and a lot more can go wrong with heroin use. Though I should add that I have never tried it.) The net is that I just donÂ’t see pot legalization spelling doom for America. On the other hand I do think the drug war is big waste of resources.

Posted by: grandmalcaesar at January 16, 2014 11:56 AM (yrohn)

221 Pot will be Americas Victory Gin.

Posted by: YIKES! at January 16, 2014 11:57 AM (mETGQ)

222 Ace, there's been a lot of medical research on pot and schizophrenia and the medical research is saying pot causes schizophrenia and psychotic episodes. The more pot you smoke and the younger you start it increases the odds of having a psychotic episode and it lowers the age of first psychotic episode. I know it's fun to mock Reefer Madness OMG!, but we aren't pulling this out of our ass. Sure, most people who smoke pot won't ever have a psychotic episode. But you know what? Most people that smoke tobacco will never get lung cancer. That doesn't mean lung cancer is just a fake scare the prudes are making up.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 16, 2014 11:57 AM (ZPrif)

223

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 03:53 PM (UHS5k)

I like my e-cig :/

Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 11:57 AM (bStrg)

224 Ace: I'm deeply suspicious of these arguments that our lack of freedom in many spheres is a strong argument for limiting our freedom in others.

He may be onto something here, though.

We need to see more stupid meatheads dying from the effects of their own actions, regardless of drug legalization.

Posted by: Kristophr at January 16, 2014 11:57 AM (c6N69)

225 >>>This angle of attack by Libertine nation strikes me as similar to the Glee Mafia's subversion of Libertarian minded GOPers and Capital R Luap Nor Cultists to empower their activists. i assume you mean gay stuff? I'm not in favor of gay marriage but yes I agree that someone else's sexual habits and preferences are no business of the government's. Ever notice that people always believe they should have the freedom to do the things they personally want to do, but when it comes to another man's pleasures, they're suddenly not quite so sure you should have the freedom to do that? Here's a not-well-kept-secret about humans: We do not approve of pleasure seeking. We look down on hedonistic impulses. Even while we maximize our own pleasure. The way we balance the scales is by condemning all pleasures enjoyed by *other people,* while blessing our own.

Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 11:57 AM (/FnUH)

226 Don't care about weed smokers. My real concern is with the driving, and what might constitute a presumptive legal limit for weed DUI? The cop touched on it. No easy test like a roadside breathalyzer. In California, suprising percentage of fatal accidents have been found to involve at least one party at least having weed in system. Crapload of people out here driving around high or almost high, especially on city streets.

Posted by: Andrew at January 16, 2014 11:57 AM (tOrh0)

227 201 ace at January 16, 2014 03:53 PM (/FnUH)

I'd suspect that your suspicion is wrong.

I am against the punitive use of regulatory power enabled by Wickard V Filburn to make a LOT of things a Federal Matter Ace...

I could give three fucks if rocket fuel in the veins is legalized...hell quite the contrary since we refuse to reform the welfare state I would very much LIKE intoxicants legalized and subsidized even.

I am fairly certain there is no principle in play here for the Libertine left beyond I want THIS *my* freedom for *my intoxicant*....why should heroin users be denies the lack of jail for their habits or access to medicinal grade heroin?

It's okay that the Libertine left is going to get their cookie while still keeping the dumbfucks going after E-cigs with aplomb in power Ace, but I am not gonna clap and act like some great principle is served by their "tagreted" freedom loving.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 11:58 AM (TE35l)

228 Dude, there you go, a potential sales phenomenon. Make'em rainbow colored and large enough, and you've got a winner. Rounding up a crew for product testing is on you, though.

Posted by: Jean at January 16, 2014 11:58 AM (4JkHl)

229 "...at some point, their overworked livers just quit on them, and they become diabetic. "

Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 03:51 PM (/FnUH)

So....it's pretty clear that you weren't pre-med.

Insulin is produced in the pancreas.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 16, 2014 11:58 AM (QFxY5)

230 The current medical research actually does claim that pot is a "causal factor" in schizophrenia and psychotic episodes.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 16, 2014 11:58 AM (ZPrif)

231 Legalize pot if you want. But I want laws also assuring me that I don't have to pay for the enevitable treatment center costs or the welfare of keeping your worthless stoned asses fed and housed.

Posted by: Soona at January 16, 2014 03:55 PM (SneYa)

lol like that is gonna happen

Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 11:58 AM (bStrg)

232 But you know what? Most people that smoke tobacco will never get lung cancer. That doesn't mean lung cancer is just a fake scare the prudes are making up. It also doesnÂ’t mean we should put people in prison because they smoke tobacco.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 16, 2014 11:59 AM (QF8uk)

233 115 I read a study on the effect pot can have on a young adult brain, and there has been some link to it causing psychosis or schizophrenia. It was of interest to me as my son's childhood friend began to behave bizarrely at around 17/18 years of age, totally out of character. We suspected heavy drugs, but the tests came back negative, it seems he had taken to smoking pot regularly and now has been diagnosed as a schizophrenic, and has to take medication to keep him on an even keel. Same thing happened to another young man I know, who is now 38 and is incapable of leading a normal life. I do think there needs to be more research into this, but I know that watching my son's friend go from a normal teen to a schizophrenic who acted out in the most bizarre ways certainly makes me wonder.

Posted by: flmom at January 16, 2014 11:59 AM (nSjrf)

234 I'm deeply suspicious of these arguments that our lack of freedom in many spheres is a strong argument for limiting our freedom in others.

Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 03:54 PM (/FnUH)

Why the suspicion, ace? I think it's pretty straightforward. If you want to legalize pot, then don't subsidize its users. But if you try to suggest drug tests for welfare recipients you're treated like a Nazi.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/i][/u][/b] at January 16, 2014 11:59 AM (4df7R)

235 <i>But hey, if it works for you and you haven't been caught yet, its all good.</i>

Have you met my wife? She's over there. The one with the scars on her wrists and the glazed-over eyes.

Posted by: wiserbud at January 16, 2014 11:59 AM (NXg/k)

236 I dunno that criminals would just find another criminal activity. Smaller pool of such activities, fewer slots for criminals, yes?

Posted by: Surellin at January 16, 2014 12:00 PM (DWuhs)

237

>>It also doesnÂ’t mean we should put people in prison because they smoke tobacco.

.They used to in Saudi Arabia. Not sure if they still do.

Posted by: Registered voter at January 16, 2014 12:00 PM (Hdbf3)

238 Flatbush Joe: Pot use doen's correlate with causing schizophrenia.

Many schizos self-medicate with tobacco and pot. Cart before horse here.

Posted by: Kristophr at January 16, 2014 12:00 PM (c6N69)

239 I like my e-cig :/ Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 03:57 PM (bStrg) I'm trying.

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 12:00 PM (UHS5k)

240 Darn it. A pot thread. I tried to stay close, lest there be a pot thread... but then I got high.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 16, 2014 12:00 PM (TOk1P)

241 The argument that drives me batty is when pro-pot legalization point out all the harms of the "War on Drugs" as if they go away if pot is legalized. ---------------------------- The War on Drugs is an abject failure because it did not eradicate drug use in America. Other failures: The War on Murder The War on Rape Legalize that shit, too. Only the possibility of 100% efficacy justifies any effort to limit harm.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 12:00 PM (CJjw5)

242 226 ace at January 16, 2014 03:57 PM (/FnUH)

My objection to the assholish way Glee mafia is going about getting their cookie is they are planning on attacking Religious Liberty and are very open and brazen about it.

I could give three fucks how gay or straight a couple is.

Ah BUT I get it, some liberties trump others...so for example a Muslim feels absolutely entitled to demand unisex course instruction and the state caves but if a Christian man tries to we get NOW swarmed.

My mistake, some people *really* believe and others fake it.

Thank God we have progressives around to make those judgement calls.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 12:00 PM (TE35l)

243 So if I'm wearing Google Glass when I get drunk on my beer, what happens?

Do I get Google Goggles???

Posted by: Vortex Lovera at January 16, 2014 12:00 PM (wtvvX)

244 Posted by: Country Singer at January 16, 2014 03:53 PM (L8r/r) Are you around the music business? I am, in Colorado. I'm shocked at how many people are gowing pot in their basments and closets. They are all out walking around with little containers and shoving them in my face, saying, "Smell that, motherfucker!" I know a guy who was recently at a bar in Morrison for a "sample trade". Twenty guys trading homegrown samples. And it all smells good, ho hum. I can take it or leave it, it would be harder to give up my daily glass of wine. Cigs were murder but I quit eventually, 30 years ago. The cartels are dead. They can't go house to house, and the small boutique dealers are undercutting their prices with better quality pot. Fun for those who are into it. I like smelling it better than smoking it.

Posted by: Meremortal at January 16, 2014 12:01 PM (1Y+hH)

245 >231 The current medical research actually does claim that pot is a "causal factor" in schizophrenia and psychotic episodes. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 16, 2014 03:58 PM (ZPrif) < Yes, but the appeal for "honest debate" calls for the admission that you, yourself, haven't done the clinical study. So it shouldn't be mentioned.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at January 16, 2014 12:01 PM (5xmd7)

246 Kristophr, have you bothered to read any of the actual research? Thought not.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 16, 2014 12:01 PM (ZPrif)

247 "every day there is a new problem with it, I notice. I agree that's a problem, but I sort of suspect it's not your main objection, as this is a newly-minted objection. Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 03:53 PM (/FnUH)" This style of rebuttal is rather lame. Sven is correct in that the federal government can still harsh people's buzzes no matter what any given state does. Selectively enforcing the law is far from ideal, and ignoring that which you have railed against in the past is somewhat hypocritical. I don't think that the federal government should be involved in the issue at all when the issue stays entirely within a state. The courts, unfortunately, disagree, and they have upheld federal supremacy over drug policy even if the drugs aren't crossing state lines. Legalizing it in any state without changing federal laws means that a vindictive little prick born in Hawaii can apply the law against his political enemies at his leisure, and ignore it when it comes to those who he expects to vote properly.

Posted by: NotCoach at January 16, 2014 12:01 PM (rsudF)

248 Awesome pic at WZ of vultures on an elephant carcass. I think I know what I will send along to the RNC along with my non donation.

Posted by: RWC at January 16, 2014 12:01 PM (fWAjv)

249 242 Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 04:00 PM (CJjw5)

I made a very serious, and non cryptic series of posts asking why states can't "neutralize" since Gabe took offense at the idea that CO was "nullifying" Federal law.

Why can't the coal belt neutralize Obama's war on coal?

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 12:02 PM (TE35l)

250 So....it's pretty clear that you weren't pre-med. Insulin is produced in the pancreas. Ewok don't have a Pancreas.

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 12:02 PM (UHS5k)

251 I'm deeply suspicious of these arguments that our lack of freedom in many spheres is a strong argument for limiting our freedom in others.

It's actually an argument that indulging your hobby will further erode the freedoms of others. But why would you give a fuck? You're stoned.

Posted by: HR at January 16, 2014 12:02 PM (ZKzrr)

252 Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 03:57 PM (/FnUH) Painting with an awfully broad brush there... There are those of us who really don't care what you do, as long as it does not affect me or mine... Because we understand that if 'we' wish to be free to do as we wish, we must give other people that Freedom as well. The line then becomes... when does it affect me or mine....

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 16, 2014 12:02 PM (lZBBB)

253 198 How does the legalization crowd propose we deal with that? Posted by: Serious Cat at January 16, 2014 03:40 PM (UyYYt) Uh.... talk to your landlord? Apparently there is something wrong with the ventilation... Posted by: Romeo13 at January 16, 2014 03:53 PM (lZBBB) A letter would be best. Don't complain about the pot, complain about the ventilation.

Posted by: Jean at January 16, 2014 12:02 PM (4JkHl)

254 But you know what? Most people that smoke tobacco will never get lung cancer. That doesn't mean lung cancer is just a fake scare the prudes are making up. It also doesnÂ’t mean we should put people in prison because they smoke tobacco. Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 16, 2014 03:59 PM (QF8uk) ***** You can also get lung cancer and have never been a smoker.

Posted by: YIKES! at January 16, 2014 12:02 PM (mETGQ)

255 I'm trying.

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 04:00 PM (UHS5k)

Like what I tried to convey in the ONT, as like most things in life, it's about the equipment that you're using

Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 12:02 PM (bStrg)

256 65
Legalizing alcohol was the first step down the slippery slope. It's been downhill ever since.

Posted by: Carrie Nation at January 16, 2014 03:31 PM (1Y+hH)

Verhy reactioanry of you grannhy!

Posted by: Froggy at January 16, 2014 12:03 PM (xFg3I)

257 Everything we need to know about the alcohol vs weed argument can be learned by watching Animal House. Alcohol caused wild, out of control partying, car wrecks, racial strife, failing grades, gang fights, sexual indiscretion and loss of domicile. Weed caused introspection and mellow. I think the evidence is pretty clear.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 16, 2014 12:03 PM (g1DWB)

258 251 So....it's pretty clear that you weren't pre-med. Insulin is produced in the pancreas. Ewok don't have a Pancreas. --- Don't they eat sweetbreads? If so, they should know what a pancreas looks like.

Posted by: Cameron Frye at January 16, 2014 12:03 PM (/Crba)

259

Bring on the needles on the playground and meth zombies going apeshit on pedestrians. We already have laws that criminalize bad behavior. Don't criminalize the millions of heroin junkies, crankster gangsters and crackheads that can handle their shit over the monkeyshines of an irresponsible few.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 03:56 PM (CJjw5)

I wonder how long it will take for drug addiction to be considered a disability that will get a criminal a reduced sentence (not to mention disability payments)? Like, if you kill someone while you're under the influence of PSP, does that count as temporary insanity? What's the current case law regarding a death caused by someone's drunkenness?

Of course it doesn't matter what the current reading of the law is. Just this past month we saw a kid get off with a slap on the wrist after killing four people when he was drunk because his parents life of privilege never taught him boundaries. So hell, free for all!

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/i][/u][/b] at January 16, 2014 12:03 PM (4df7R)

260 People are going to die. The most crucial imperative is not to extend our lives as long as possible by limiting our freedom to do anything unhealthy or "bad."

The most crucial imperative is to extend our liberty during those brief years allotted to us by biology or God.

Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 03:51 PM (/FnUH)

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Yet you seemed to suggest in other places that the expansion of freedom via legalization of drugs will have no effect on my freedom.

When you can reconcile the increased costs of legalization vis a vis the welfare state then I will sign on with you. But taking my money to pay for stoners and their lay-about lives is not increasing my freedom.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 16, 2014 12:03 PM (QFxY5)

261 248 NotCoach at January 16, 2014 04:01 PM (rsudF)

They're tracking sales and going to use it to feed BATF for gun rights denial and I have no doubt that GOPers will be investigated.

Hey look I get it I am just a prudish asshole in wanting to do either "Just Pot" or a full spectrum assault on the issues with the drug war federally.

No problem, of course I will bet that when AK legalizes it it will be handled differently than CO.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 12:04 PM (TE35l)

262 The line then becomes... when does it affect me or mine.... Posted by: Romeo13 at January 16, 2014 04:02 PM (lZBBB) And even that becomes a matter of degree. I'm affected by the congestion caused by other people on the roads, for example. Especially those people in big SUVs and trucks that they "don't need".

Posted by: Meremortal at January 16, 2014 12:04 PM (1Y+hH)

263 259 Everything we need to know about the alcohol vs weed argument can be learned by watching Animal House. Alcohol caused wild, out of control partying, car wrecks, racial strife, failing grades, gang fights, sexual indiscretion and loss of domicile. Weed caused introspection and mellow. --- From Animal House- *before smoking joint* "This won't make me go schitzo, will it?" "It's a distinct possibility.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 16, 2014 12:04 PM (/Crba)

264 I think I'm just going to watch Colorado and see what happens there in the short and long term. It will be a great real-time experiment.

Posted by: toby928© at January 16, 2014 12:04 PM (QupBk)

265 smoking and lung cancer, must be correlation, I know an old dude who lived to 80 and smoke 2 packs a day. Stupid scientists don't know shit. cart and horse. dummies

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 16, 2014 12:05 PM (ZPrif)

266 Back in the day, $20 would get a brown paper grocery bag full of White Castles. Posted by: rickb223
.........
And.. Standing in line at a White Castle at 2 am back in the 70's was a real experience, I'll tell ya..

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 16, 2014 12:05 PM (f9c2L)

267 Does pot make you expand your margins....all.the.time?

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at January 16, 2014 12:05 PM (bCEmE)

268 IF you don't have an elaborate soul-sucking welfare state. But in our society, we just don't let the stupid meth heads die. No, no, we have to give them housing and a stipend. For those who argue that adults should be allowed to make their own decisions to ponder: Meth has a 98% addiction rate after two uses. Think about that. For all the people who tried pot once or twice in high-school and set it aside, what if you had tried meth? Brain function is impaired after one use. Forever. Meth also has the highest recidivism rate of all the drugs. So if you get clean, you're very likely to go back. Even if we don't have a welfare state, and if you can ignore the human destruction factor, what about all the property crime meth-heads create? There are drugs that are so bad they shouldn't be legal. Meth is one of them.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 16, 2014 12:05 PM (P7Wsr)

269 What I was saying is if you fill out the State form to buy pot you have just rendered yourself ineligible to buy a gun due to the question about pot on the federal form.

The 4473 asks if you are an "unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana, etc. At some point we'll see the definition of unlawful tested when someone in CO attests that their rights are being violated when they fail the background check. For those that don't want to test the law, there's always Armslist.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 16, 2014 12:05 PM (+lsX1)

270 I thought pot was supposed to make people mellow? It ain't working in this thread.

Posted by: West at January 16, 2014 12:05 PM (1Rgee)

271 I dunno that criminals would just find another criminal activity. Smaller pool of such activities, fewer slots for criminals, yes?

Posted by: Surellin at January 16, 2014 04:00 PM (DWuhs)

Tobacco is legal. Try selling it without the state license and paying the state taxes and you have a lot of trouble coming your way. Plenty of room for tax evaders when marijuana is legalized.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - We Have the HRC Designer Vindictivenous Line Exclusively! at January 16, 2014 12:05 PM (hLRSq)

272 At least once a week my walk-in closet reeks of pot. --- Can't tell if kidding or serious. Living in an apartment stinks, whether your neighbors smoke pot, smoke cigarettes, make curry, are French, burn stinky candles or have cats. Society, man...it stinks. If you really hate it, do exactly what you would do for any other nuisance forbidden by the apartment management. Complain, move, etc.

Posted by: Jenny Hates The French at January 16, 2014 12:05 PM (+bkaS)

273 266 I think I'm just going to watch Colorado and see what happens there in the short and long term. It will be a great real-time experiment. --- It's what I wish my state would do, but apparently they want to jump onto the pot bandwagon as well. I guess all those sugarcane growers need to raise something else since they're getting their asses kicked by NAFTA and other agreements.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 16, 2014 12:05 PM (/Crba)

274

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at January 16, 2014 04:03 PM (4df7R)

The PSP was a decent drug but the followup has been a bomb

Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 12:05 PM (bStrg)

275 The crazy leftist at the end really made me sick to my stomach - I wonder how much anti-semitism he got from politics and how much he got from his mental illness.

Posted by: Inspector Cussword at January 16, 2014 12:06 PM (g/68I)

276 Let's talk about Conservatism for a minute. Incrementalism should be a familiar term yet plenty here are all for taking pot nationwide while bashing other commenters for being too Liberal. And--making conclusions about Colorado or Washington and applying them already to supposed greater effects? That's crap logic. First only rich people are going to be able to travel to Colorado or Washington--and those two states really aren't that heavily populated yet already we have the Logic Libertarians talking about the result on the drug trade. Then another Logic Fail--they are talking about the result on prices. Ever hear of the theory in economics of-- Pent up demand? Wait awhile before leaping to your supposed superior logic conclusions.

Posted by: Doobie Hits for $100 at January 16, 2014 12:06 PM (RJMhd)

277

The psychiatrist is "Dr. Phyllis Boniface"....

Giggle....snerk...

Posted by: CJ at January 16, 2014 12:07 PM (9KqcB)

278 Tobacco is legal. Try selling it without the state license and paying the state taxes and you have a lot of trouble coming your way. --- Mainly from a bunch of "old family gentlemen" who control the untaxed cigarette business in various markets, rather than the feds. They don't like competition.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 16, 2014 12:07 PM (/Crba)

279 252 HR at January 16, 2014 04:02 PM (ZKzrr)

Correct the Libertine Left is running a con they want their cookie made "normal." Just like that other issue. While there are compelling arguments to be made about limiting Federal Power on each issue they CRAVE that power still they simply do not want it wielded at THEM.

No problem, I am a libertarian leaning Republican...

of course I know no democrat will ever cross the aisle to join ME in reigning in EPA's corrupt war on prosperity...

because "cleanliness" because "corporations"...

that's ok I just understand the game.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 12:07 PM (TE35l)

280 >>>Why the suspicion, ace? I think it's pretty straightforward. If you want to legalize pot, then don't subsidize its users. But if you try to suggest drug tests for welfare recipients you're treated like a Nazi. because every new problem caused by Obamacare is the justification for new limitations on freedom to fix the original problem. You're just using the same logic in a rightist way-- because we are now in a "communitarian environment" where everyone is on the hook for everyone else, we must perforce criminalize drug use. And thus every limitation on freedom produces "problems" where people still aren't using their freedom in a Socially Benevolent Way and so we need new laws to make sure they use their diminishing residue of freedom the right way.

Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 12:07 PM (/FnUH)

281 I never minded the pot-smokers argument that they should be all allowed to get high off weeds, but all of their bullshit arguments made me recognize the shitbaggery behind the movement. Lying fucktards.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 16, 2014 12:07 PM (ZshNr)

282 A major problem I see is people who are high getting behind the wheel and causing accidents. How do they measure how much pot is in someone's system? With multiple varieties, it must vary.

Posted by: Justamom at January 16, 2014 12:08 PM (3R0Zs)

283 There are drugs that are so bad they shouldn't be legal. Meth is one of them. Posted by: bonhomme at January 16, 2014 04:05 PM (P7Wsr) Concur.... but I propose leaving that up to the STATES.... especially as the FBI is now in the National Security, vice Law Enforcement Business.

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 16, 2014 12:08 PM (lZBBB)

284 The current medical research actually does claim that pot is a "causal factor" in schizophrenia and psychotic episodes.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 16, 2014 03:58 PM (ZPrif)

-------------------------------------------

All one has to do is go to their nearest drug and alcohol treatment center and talk to the potheads for proof of mental incapacitation.

I say we stop the treatment center madness too. It's nothing but a government redistribution scheme. If there are private entities that wish to open treatment centers, then they can. But don't make me have to pay for it.

Let people deal with the consequences of their actions for once.

Posted by: Soona at January 16, 2014 12:08 PM (SneYa)

285 Posted by: Meremortal at January 16, 2014 04:01 PM (1Y+hH)

I used to be, but those are behind me, now. Yeah, I knew a lot of "personal growers" in Nashville, but even more were dealers. Exponentially more were strictly users.

I can honestly say I had more people trying to sell me pot in Nashville than in Jamaica.

Posted by: Country Singer at January 16, 2014 12:08 PM (L8r/r)

286 Personally, I would like to see addicts registered. No vote, no guns, no automobiles.

Put the BATFE in charge of policing registered addicts and providing them their fix, and take firearms enforcement away from them.

Heh.

Posted by: Kristophr at January 16, 2014 12:09 PM (c6N69)

287 >>> Correct the Libertine Left is running a con they want their cookie made "normal." Just like that other issue. why does that bother you? You seem very invested in the proposition that what you consider "normal" must be officially blessed as such by the state. By the way: As far as what is 'normal," I'm pretty sure you and I wouldn't disagree on too much of it. Despite being pro-pot legalization, I'm anti-pot, and I don't like most stoners. But I disagree with you on the idea that we should (must?) use the state as a positive force for "normalizing" behaviors or denormalizing others -- apart from things which *directly* harm someone else, such as all the classic crimes.

Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 12:09 PM (/FnUH)

288

Posted by: Brandon in Baton Rouge at January 16, 2014 04:07 PM (/Crba)

The state gets a bit snippy when you don't hand over those tax receipts also.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - We Have the HRC Designer Vindictivenous Line Exclusively! at January 16, 2014 12:10 PM (hLRSq)

289 You don't hear about frat pledges dying from cannabis intoxication during rush.

Posted by: SFGoth at January 16, 2014 12:10 PM (VGDJR)

290 someplace, two trains have left two stations (MATH QUESTION). If one is labeled "Progressivism" and the other "Cognitive Dissonance," when the two collide, how many will die?

Posted by: tangonine at January 16, 2014 12:10 PM (x3YFz)

291 >>247 Kristophr, have you bothered to read any of the actual research? Thought not. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 16, 2014 04:01 PM (ZPrif) << Summaries of it. I wasn't saying you shouldn't mention expert third-party evidence; I was saying, people who want "honest debate" want you to stop mentioning expert testimony because "honestly" you don't know it yourself. They want an open-slate.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at January 16, 2014 12:10 PM (5xmd7)

292 Meth has a 98% addiction rate after two uses. Is this because people smoke it now? I've heard the same thing about crack, and yet I .. er .. have friends ..that have used both powder cocaine and methamphetamine in pill form many times without this instant addiction I'm always hearing about. Some Moron Doctor needs to put me the knowledge on this point.

Posted by: toby928© at January 16, 2014 12:10 PM (QupBk)

293 270 bonhomme at January 16, 2014 04:05 PM (P7Wsr)

Horsefuck.

Meth was legal and perfectly fine in the 70s until 1978.

My own cookie was pills.

Why should Pothead get his cookie and I not get mine?

Oh right because the war on drugs is not wrong it is JUST THE TARGET RATIOS...

Got it..."principled stand" "freedom."

Either our bodies are ours or they aren't...

if pot is "never abused and hey man medicinal compared to booze" and I assure you for *me* it likely would be I am a genetic raging alcoholic then who are you to say I cannot take a purple football "which is just like as claming as drinking 5 or 6 beers without hangovers or throwing up?'

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 12:11 PM (TE35l)

294 I never minded the pot-smokers argument that they should be all allowed to get high off weeds, but all of their bullshit arguments made me recognize the shitbaggery behind the movement. Lying fucktards.
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 16, 2014 04:07 PM (ZshNr)

Yup, no different than the gay mafia. One reason I'm against legalization, though not my primary one.

Posted by: mugiwara at January 16, 2014 12:11 PM (W7ffl)

295 I think I'm just going to watch Colorado and see what happens there in the short and long term. It will be a great real-time experiment. Posted by: toby928Â© at January 16, 2014 04:04 PM (QupBk) I'm in Colorado and I agree. The usual dire predictions about pot were made when the medical dodge got passed, but I've seen no stats on problems. With legalization and we should learn a lot over the next 5-10 years. Judging by the vote tally, about half the adults in the state used pot to some extent before it was legal. Surprised anything at all gets done around here.

Posted by: Meremortal at January 16, 2014 12:11 PM (1Y+hH)

296 Posted by: Doobie Hits for $100 at January 16, 2014 04:06 PM (RJMhd) Problem is... that even though I don't smoke weed.... I could go and get some within probably half an hour.... Here in California... Its out there.... its already available...

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 16, 2014 12:11 PM (lZBBB)

297 The current medical research actually does claim that pot is a "causal factor" in schizophrenia and psychotic episodes.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 16, 2014 03:58 PM (ZPrif)

-------------------------------------------------

Testing

Posted by: Soona at January 16, 2014 12:11 PM (SneYa)

298 I can honestly say I had more people trying to sell me pot in Nashville than in Jamaica. --- I'll point out, for the record, that pot isn't fully legal in Jamaica either... it's only legal for Rastafarians. Apparently, many a tourist has bought pot in Jamaica and ended up in deep shit when busted by the local cops.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 16, 2014 12:11 PM (/Crba)

299 If its legal to smoke pot, can an employer be sued for firing an employee who is a screw up stoner? What if the employee has a prescription?

Posted by: Justamom at January 16, 2014 12:11 PM (3R0Zs)

300
This will eventually be legal everywhere. Why? Taxes. The govts want that sweet sweet cash.

Consider how much money they spend on finding and prosecuting the few amount of moonshiners. It is way out of proportion until you realize the revenuers are a big govt cartel and no competition shall be allowed.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 16, 2014 12:11 PM (n0DEs)

301 espite being pro-pot legalization, I'm anti-pot, and I don't like most stoners. But I disagree with you on the idea that we should (must?) use the state as a positive force for "normalizing" behaviors or denormalizing others -- apart from things which *directly* harm someone else, such as all the classic crimes. Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 04:09 PM (/FnUH) ********* I don't know. How about some middle ground? Right now we use the state to "encourage" seat belt use.

Posted by: Doobie Hits for $100 at January 16, 2014 12:11 PM (RJMhd)

302 Here's the thing... Why is it not incumbent upon those that seek to have pot be illegal to show that there IS harm, and not just "some" harm, but enough to necessitate gov't action to ban the substance ? Especially given the fact that other non-harmless mind altering substances are NOT banned. As far as mental illness goes, from what I see from people that would know, they only talk about earlier onset of symptoms, to put it in mild terms. As in, you are schizophrenic, but maybe you just don't realize it. So now you smoke pot and, hey, I have some episodes that make it clear that I am. It doesn't CAUSE anyone to become mentally ill, it just brings out their symptoms. Which, I'm quite sure, is true of other substances as well, including alcohol.

Posted by: deadrody at January 16, 2014 12:11 PM (b2D8X)

303

>>The 4473 asks if you are an "unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana, etc. At some point we'll see the definition of unlawful tested when someone in CO attests that their rights are being violated when they fail the background check. For those that don't want to test the law, there's always Armslist.

.My point is...you are an unlawful user on the Federal Form if you have bought or used Pot in CO because the Fed does not recognize any legal form of pot usage, no matter what the State says. It is a Federal form to buy a gun, not a State form.

Posted by: Registered voter at January 16, 2014 12:12 PM (Hdbf3)

304

OK this is weird

I'm looking up info on a body that was just found buried in a backyard, which turned out to be a guy that was missing since Oct. They found him only because a lawyer did an anonymous tip that a body was there.

In looking it up, I found another man, same name same age, killed by a hit and run in the same general area, killed earlier in Oct.

So, what happened?

Hitman without a photo?

Posted by: Bigby's Mitts at January 16, 2014 12:12 PM (3ZtZW)

305 Tepid Air talking about legalizing weed? Not spiraling into Righteous Righteousness?

I can't get this image of Poppin' Fresh puffin' a spliff outta my head....

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 16, 2014 12:12 PM (ff7/5)

306 Re: pot and schizophrenia It is a bullshit correlation, basically the same as "vaccines cause autism". Schizophrenia manifests in adolesence and early adulthood, which is the age at which most people try pot (if they are inclined to). That's it.

Posted by: Jenny Hates The French at January 16, 2014 12:12 PM (+bkaS)

307 I can honestly say I had more people trying to sell me pot in Nashville than in Jamaica. Posted by: Country Singer at January 16, 2014 04:08 Wow. And we thought it was just the rockers and Phish fans.

Posted by: Meremortal at January 16, 2014 12:12 PM (1Y+hH)

308 Like, if you kill someone while you're under the influence of PSP, does that count as temporary insanity? Don't you touch my PSP.

Posted by: Kindergartner with a Knife[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 16, 2014 12:12 PM (P7Wsr)

309

You're just using the same logic in a rightist way-- because we are now in a "communitarian environment" where everyone is on the hook for everyone else, we must perforce criminalize drug use.

I'm just saying that If you decriminalize pot, then you should ensure that pot users are responsible for the consequences of their actions. I don't see why I should say, "yeah, go ahead, decriminalize it" without also getting to say, "But I want something in return, and that something is drug tests for welfare recipients."

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/i][/u][/b] at January 16, 2014 12:13 PM (4df7R)

310 Meth has a 98% addiction rate after two uses.

This sounds like a line from an updated version of Reefer Madness.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 16, 2014 12:13 PM (+lsX1)

311 I smoked weed every fucking day of my high school years. I graduated with A's and B's. I knew a ton of weedheads who ran successful businesses. I knew very. very few weed heads who were lazy, and they were lazy before becoming weed heads. Today's hipster stoner ocu-tards are fucked up because THAT is who they are. The weed has nothing to do with it. Smoking weed is a symptom of who they are, not the other way around.

Posted by: Berserker- Dragonheads Division at January 16, 2014 12:13 PM (FMbng)

312 291 Posted by: Brandon in Baton Rougeat January 16, 2014 04:07 PM (/Crba) The state gets a bit snippy when you don't hand over those tax receipts also --- The state is less likely to splatter you across a wall if you either compete with them or steal from them. The untaxed cigarettes racket in Canada is very bloody because of all the money involved.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 16, 2014 12:13 PM (/Crba)

313 I can tell you pot does affect the brain. After smoking as a teen for years, around 25 I couldn't smoke it without becoming paranoid as hell. So I stopped. And I try a toke around every 5 years when the situation presents itself and the same thing happens. So I just said screw it, I'm done trying.

Posted by: Scottye_fl at January 16, 2014 12:13 PM (XjnSK)

314 Of course, the other argument here, in opposition of the idea that it "won't reduce criminality" is that when alcohol probibition was enacted, it DID cause criminality, and when it was repealed, it DID cause a reduction in criminality. There will ALWAYS be people looking to make a quick buck through criminal pursuits. I think that's part of what you're saying, but the fact is, the less demand there is for black market products, the less criminality there will be. That's simply a fact.

Posted by: deadrody at January 16, 2014 12:14 PM (b2D8X)

315 Is this because people smoke it now? I've heard the same thing about crack, and yet I .. er .. have friends ..that have used both powder cocaine and methamphetamine in pill form many times without this instant addiction I'm always hearing about.

Some Moron Doctor needs to put me the knowledge on this point.

Posted by: toby928Â© at January 16, 2014 04:10 PM (QupBk)

---------------------------------------------

Your friends are bullshitting you and themselves.

Posted by: Soona at January 16, 2014 12:14 PM (SneYa)

316 Can't wait until these 'legal' pot shops are able to accept WIC cards...

Posted by: Countrysquire at January 16, 2014 12:14 PM (LSJmV)

317 This thread smells like my art teacher's office.

http://imgur.com/gallery/MQrDdKx

Posted by: wiserbud at January 16, 2014 12:14 PM (NXg/k)

318 Its out there.... its already available... Posted by: Romeo13 at January 16, 2014 04:11 PM And has been since about 1969.

Posted by: Meremortal at January 16, 2014 12:14 PM (1Y+hH)

319 292 You don't hear about frat pledges dying from cannabis intoxication during rush.

Posted by: SFGoth at January 16, 2014 04:10 PM (VGDJR)

Oh. Goodie.

It's one of 'those' arguments. Alcohol is bad, pot isn't as bad.. blah blah blah.

Brain teaser: legalize everything. the cartels will just take their billions and go home right?

Think strategically, not tactically.

Posted by: tangonine at January 16, 2014 12:14 PM (x3YFz)

320 319 Can't wait until these 'legal' pot shops are able to accept WIC cards... --- You mean EBT cards. WIC is Women Infant Children and is used to get bread, milk, veggies, etc. I don't think pot counts as a veggie, even if you try to claim it is oregano.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 16, 2014 12:15 PM (/Crba)

321 Can't wait until these 'legal' pot shops are able to accept WIC cards...

Posted by: Countrysquire at January 16, 2014 04:14 PM (LSJmV)

it's a comming

Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 12:15 PM (bStrg)

322 The War on Wire and Mail Fraud: also a failure. Legalize that shit.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 12:15 PM (CJjw5)

323 302 If its legal to smoke pot, can an employer be sued for firing an employee who is a screw up stoner? What if the employee has a prescription? Posted by: Justamom at January 16, 2014 04:11 PM (3R0Zs) ******** Or could employers discriminate and test for potheads and refuse to hire them? I'm sure Libertarians would say they were all for that in the hypothesis--but their unemployed supporters of the 20 year old demographic might have a problem with that reality check. Speaking of that under 21 year old demographic--I think last time I dared to look their unemployment rate was in the 20% range(?) This will be possibly the most lost generation of Americans , the first to fail at doing better than their parents... Liberals and Libertarians are going to want them on that pot.

Posted by: Doobie Hits for $100 at January 16, 2014 12:16 PM (RJMhd)

324 If its legal to smoke pot, can an employer be sued for firing an employee who is a screw up stoner? What if the employee has a prescription? Posted by: Justamom It's prefectly legal to fire employees for breaking a drug policy, even for tobacco at home when off work. Not sure how they catch you...

Posted by: Meremortal at January 16, 2014 12:16 PM (1Y+hH)

325 316 Or, you were smoking a different strain. Or your brain changed independent of the weed---your brain isn't through maturing til age 24-26. Or you abstained for a while and that changed how you respond. A person who only drinks every five years will also have a worse experience than one who drinks regularly.

Posted by: Jenny Hates The French at January 16, 2014 12:17 PM (+bkaS)

326 The more fcked up I get the better Michelle Obama looks.

Posted by: Sphynx at January 16, 2014 12:17 PM (OZmbA)

327 >>305 Here's the thing... Why is it not incumbent upon those that seek to have pot be illegal to show that there IS harm, and not just "some" harm, but enough to necessitate gov't action to ban the substance ? << They did that over 50 years ago, when they banned it.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at January 16, 2014 12:17 PM (5xmd7)

328 Considering how much crime seems related to people robbing convenience stores for cigarettes and liquor - both legal -- I honestly do wonder what will happen if and when pot becomes similarly accessible.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/i][/u][/b] at January 16, 2014 12:17 PM (4df7R)

329 You're right B in BR, got my freebie acronyms confused.

Posted by: Countrysquire at January 16, 2014 12:17 PM (LSJmV)

330 This sounds like a line from an updated version of Reefer Madness.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 16, 2014 04:13 PM (+lsX1)

-------------------------------------------------

Well then try it. If you're so sure of yourself that you're able to mock these stats, then prove them wrong with your own research. Go for it. I dare you.

Posted by: Soona at January 16, 2014 12:17 PM (SneYa)

331 290 ace at January 16, 2014 04:09 PM (/FnUH)

Not at all Ace, I am interested in subverting the power of the Federal Government to compel if it is THAT compulsion and encroachment on liberty that is the wrong.

That is not an idiotic dodge or nuance either.

Gays wants "mar" and damn the torpedoes about the religious' liberty.

Ok, I mean I am hurt to my core that we are going to allow lawfare at the church but "so be it."

What about polygamy?

What argument can be made that there is a moral case for either of the other marriages that does not exist for polygamy?

On the drug issue this ALL goes back to the progressives and their war on alcohol, and demand to be empowered to dominate the economy.

Legalization by Majestix Imperia from Choom and Steadman does NOTHING to get to the roots of the attack on liberty, which is enabled by improper deference to the Xth amendment and Wickard.

I am in fact FOR CO's law thinking if anything it does not legalize enough AND would think it would be for the best if the AG HAD to sue CO rather than play "national restraint."

I take it you reject wholecloth my argument that Ohio should "neutralize" EPA's coal regs or allow class III weaponry by Governor's fiat then?

Ok, but that is not a position predicated on anything like precedent-based law.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 12:17 PM (TE35l)

332 The problem isn't the drug, or the drink, it's the failure to choose to not wreck your life while partaking. And some shit just needs to avoided altogether (meth, heroin, coke, light beer, etc etc)

And no one. No one. Teaches that.

Posted by: tangonine at January 16, 2014 12:17 PM (x3YFz)

333 Think strategically, not tactically. Posted by: tangonine at January 16, 2014 04:14 PM (x3YFz) Well HEY!! Just hit me.... Legalizing pot is an AMERICAN Jobs Program.... we grow it and sell it here, instead of getting it from foreign sources....

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 16, 2014 12:17 PM (lZBBB)

334 329 The more fcked up I get the better Michelle Obama looks. --- That's a PSA for you. Kind of like the "beer goggles" beer ad where the guy keeps drinking and the woman across from him goes from being an Amish lady with a mustache to being a supermodel.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 16, 2014 12:18 PM (/Crba)

335
What about polygamy?

I think multiple board games is just fine.

Posted by: Emily Littella at January 16, 2014 12:18 PM (OZmbA)

336 >>> You don't hear about frat pledges dying from cannabis intoxication during rush. Big Ganja is in bed with Big Media.

Posted by: fluffy rockin' the tinfoil at January 16, 2014 12:18 PM (Ua6T/)

337 >>>The current medical research actually does claim that pot is a "causal factor" in schizophrenia and psychotic episodes. if this is so... okay, I don't know, but I do know what studies USUALLY do: If there is so much as a ten percent increase in incidence, they say it's a causal factor. And I guess it is. Now let's do some math. The incidence of schizophrenia and psychotic breaks is what? I'm going to ballpark it and say less than one in one thousand. Now let's say heavy pot increases the incidence by 20%. Are we really down to this level of smashing atoms? We're going to keep something criminal because the 0.1% of the population which may become schizophrenic at one point has a 20% elevated incidence of it due to marijuana?

Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 12:18 PM (/FnUH)

338 Is this because people smoke it now? I've heard the same thing about crack, and yet I .. er .. have friends ..that have used both powder cocaine and methamphetamine in pill form many times without this instant addiction I'm always hearing about. Some Moron Doctor needs to put me the knowledge on this point. Posted by: toby928Â© at January 16, 2014 04:10 PM (QupBk) --------------------------- That's actually true. My best friend does coke all the time and you'd never know. Hang on, I'll get him to tell you, himself. Steve. Steve! Stop sucking my dick for a minute and tell these guys how you're not addicted to cocaine. ***sigh*** YES, you'll still get the twenty dollars. Just tell 'em real quick then finish me off.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 12:18 PM (CJjw5)

339 328 I didn't have a break before experiencing the paranoia. Also, even if brain wasn't fully developed, the fact that pot made me paranoid, and only pot, says something. I don't have paranoia if I don't smoke pot.

Posted by: Scottye_fl at January 16, 2014 12:19 PM (XjnSK)

340 Or could employers discriminate and test for potheads and refuse to hire them? --- They do that now, ESPECIALLY depending upon what industry the business is in. State agencies drug-test their hires. I know that some companies with high-end merchandise, like jewelers, do so as well in addition to background searches and psychological testing.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 16, 2014 12:19 PM (/Crba)

341 can't we force people to snort jizz for free Federal pot?

Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 12:20 PM (bStrg)

342 I think I'm mainly biased against the small but vocal cohort that shouts for drug legalization out of one side of it's collective Quinoa-hole, and the banning of sugar or nutritional corn out of the other. I think I'll call my pool guy and get some weed...

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 16, 2014 12:20 PM (ZshNr)

343 331 Considering how much crime seems related to people robbing convenience stores for cigarettes and liquor - both legal -- I honestly do wonder what will happen if and when pot becomes similarly accessible.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at January 16, 2014 04:17 PM (4df7R)

If I'm a cop and a pot shop gets knocked over, my response time is directly related to how far into my Chipotle Bowl I am.

Posted by: tangonine at January 16, 2014 12:20 PM (x3YFz)

344 Flatbush Joe:

Your attempt at an ad hominm argument is a fail.

I am a schizophrenic, and I am very familiar with the research. The study in question was following chemical receptor actions, and noted that THC used similar pathways to cause halucinations that schizophrenics had to deal with on a permanent basis.

It did not correlate schizophrenia onset with pot.

Do your own research before parroting propaganda based on deliberately misinterpreting someone else's science.

( and I am not a druggie, btw, and most druggies would be horrified at my solution to the problem: registered addicts - no guns, no cars, no vote, no welfare ).

Posted by: Kristophr at January 16, 2014 12:20 PM (c6N69)

345

295 -

Honestly, I don't know about meth, but I do know essentially every crack user I have ever known (and I know plenty of them) will tell you crack is different from everything else they ever used.

But it's more in the fact that anybody who ever does crack once will not stop at once because it is so unfreakingbelievably WONDERFUL the first time you try it. It's darned near impossible not to do it again. That's why they get hooked from the start.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 16, 2014 12:20 PM (TOk1P)

346 To repeat: Legalize every fucking chemical that an adult wants to take. We're supposed to be free men. If I or anyone else wants to get baked or off our respective faces on whatever fucking chemical we choose then that is no-one's fucking business but ours. (Obviously it goes without saying that if we harm others whilst intoxicated then we should be dealt with harshly by the criminal law) Basically though you should feel free to kill any fucker who opposes your individual rights. Whether they be a democrat, a church minister or government official. We need to start seeing some bodies piled up in the morgues of the fuckers who want to tell us how we're supposed to live OUR lives.

Posted by: Freedom Man at January 16, 2014 12:20 PM (KOp/H)

347 I don't know if you would test positive after a contact high, but my employer has gone to a zero-tolerance policy. No more second chances because of too many recidivists.

Posted by: Countrysquire at January 16, 2014 12:21 PM (LSJmV)

348 It's 4:20!

Posted by: Insomniac at January 16, 2014 12:21 PM (UAMVq)

349 No, legalizing pot will not reduce criminality. It's not the case that drug dealers are in the pot trade because they have a long family tradition of selling pot, and then the government just up and went and made their family business illegal. They are selling pot precisely because it is illegal -- you can charge a premium for contraband. If they are not exacting a criminal premium on their drug endeavors, they will find a new avenue of criminality which does pay them that premium. This seems like an enormous generalization to me.

Posted by: Andy at January 16, 2014 12:21 PM (kXmMT)

350 Notwithstanding the duplicity of criminalizing pot, until you find an "acceptable" way to tax it, because, well, you spend too much as a government in the first place, several inconvenient facts;

- Crime follows drugs. Yes, even pot. Reducing the criminality of possession won't obliterate that. In fact, it makes it more likely.

- Legalization will increase availability and usage. It will also increase the health and other related costs that nobody in government likes to talk about when they are rubbing their hands together about the tax windfall.

- For years, government has been telling people how bad smoking is for your health. They've alleged to want it eliminated (while gleefully hiking and collecting tax money). Now they are condoning the smoking of an unfiltered weed. Great. Nothing contra-intellectual or duplicitous about that.

- So do people who use pot also have to check that box on their health form and get charged higher premiums?

Posted by: Pass the Doritos Dude at January 16, 2014 12:21 PM (GGCsk)

351 Considering how much crime seems related to people robbing convenience stores for cigarettes and liquor - both legal -- I honestly do wonder what will happen if and when pot becomes similarly accessible.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at January 16, 2014 04:17 PM (4df7R)

Well, if there is a spike in convenience store robberies it will be by stoners smart enough to stay sober before pulling off the job. As the song says, "I was gonna hold up the corner bodega, but then I got high".

Posted by: mugiwara at January 16, 2014 12:21 PM (W7ffl)

352 Wow. And we thought it was just the rockers and Phish fans.

Posted by: Meremortal at January 16, 2014 04:12 PM (1Y+hH)

Country music has a long, long drug history. People emulate their heros; see Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, both Hanks, Willie Nelson, etc.

Posted by: Country Singer at January 16, 2014 12:21 PM (L8r/r)

353 A person who only drinks every five years will also have a worse experience than one who drinks regularly.

Posted by: Jenny Hates The French at January 16, 2014 04:17 PM (+bkaS)

---------------

Really? Huh.

Posted by: grammie winger at January 16, 2014 12:21 PM (P6QsQ)

354 Went and looked it up. Dec. 2013 Unemployment rate for 16 to 19 year olds white is: 18% Unemployment rate for 16 to 19 year olds is: 35.5% You can find them buried here-- http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

Posted by: Doobie Hits for $100 at January 16, 2014 12:21 PM (RJMhd)

355 341 Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 04:18 PM (CJjw5)

Heh Coke makes girls freaky...

I don't get it EoJ, I am probably the most pro-legalization guy here to the point I am willing to subsidize it to the poor and they still treat me like I am a party pooper.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 12:22 PM (TE35l)

356 Damn, missed by one minute.

Posted by: Insomniac at January 16, 2014 12:22 PM (UAMVq)

357
323 319 Can't wait until these 'legal' pot shops are able to accept WIC cards...

---

You mean EBT cards.

WIC is Women Infant Children and is used to get bread, milk, veggies, etc. I don't think pot counts as a veggie, even if you try to claim it is oregano.

Done and done!

http://tinyurl.com/mp8cx9x

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 16, 2014 12:22 PM (n0DEs)

358 Meth was legal and perfectly fine in the 70s until 1978. Wut? Meth was added to the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule II drug in the early '70s.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 16, 2014 12:22 PM (P7Wsr)

359 But it's more in the fact that anybody who ever does crack once will not stop at once because it is so unfreakingbelievably WONDERFUL the first time you try it. It's darned near impossible not to do it again. That's why they get hooked from the start --- DID I MISS THE 5 O'CLOCK FREE CRACK GIVEAWAY?!?

Posted by: Tyrone Bigguns at January 16, 2014 12:22 PM (/Crba)

360 To repeat: Legalize every fucking chemical that an adult wants to take. We're supposed to be free men. If I or anyone else wants to get baked or off our respective faces on whatever fucking chemical we choose then that is no-one's fucking business but ours. (Obviously it goes without saying that if we harm others whilst intoxicated then we should be dealt with harshly by the criminal law) Basically though you should feel free to kill any fucker who opposes your individual rights. Whether they be a democrat, a church minister or government official. We need to start seeing some bodies piled up in the morgues of the fuckers who want to tell us how we're supposed to live OUR lives. Posted by: Freedom Man at January 16, 2014 04:20 PM (KOp/H) ------------------- YEEEEAAAAAAH BRAAAAAHHHHH!!!

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 12:23 PM (CJjw5)

361 Basically though you should feel free to kill any fucker who opposes your individual rights. Whether they be a democrat, a church minister or government official. We need to start seeing some bodies piled up in the morgues of the fuckers who want to tell us how we're supposed to live OUR lives.

Posted by: Freedom Man at January 16, 2014 04:20 PM (KOp/H)

------------

Would you just stop with this?

Posted by: grammie winger at January 16, 2014 12:23 PM (P6QsQ)

362 Well I am pretty sure if I show up drunk to work I'm gonna at least get written up. Even though it's legal. The instant addiction comments are making me laugh....

Posted by: grandmalcaesar at January 16, 2014 12:23 PM (yrohn)

363 The real criminalization is the Pols justification for the action being anything other than they want the money.....

Posted by: PotHeadPaulie at January 16, 2014 12:23 PM (RHBWt)

364 You know EoJ, if Steve isn't sucking your dick through a hole in the wall, you might be gay.

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 12:23 PM (UHS5k)

365

Honestly, I don't know about meth, but I do know essentially every crack user I have ever known (and I know plenty of them) will tell you crack is different from everything else they ever used.

If you've ever seen the images of chronic meth users, it is NOT pretty. The down spiral is shockingly fast. Within six months you go from looking like a normal person to looking like a zombie on "The Walking Dead."

And they tend to smell like rotten mayonnaise, which is always fun.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/i][/u][/b] at January 16, 2014 12:23 PM (4df7R)

366 Your friends are bullshitting you and themselves. I'm not getting your meaning. Are you suggesting that they are, in fact, addicts? Even if they haven't used either drug in a decade?

Posted by: toby928© at January 16, 2014 12:24 PM (QupBk)

367 so unfreakingbelievably WONDERFUL the first time you try it. It's darned near impossible not to do it again. That's why they get hooked from the start.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 16, 2014 04:20 PM (TOk1P)

so unfreaking believably wonderful that they rob homes, steal cars, mug people, and basically become the bottom of society?

Nice outcome.

Posted by: tangonine at January 16, 2014 12:24 PM (x3YFz)

368 >>It's not the case that drug dealers are in the pot trade because they have a long family tradition of selling pot, and then the government just up and went and made their family business illegal.<<

Well, my name's John Lee Pettimore

Posted by: Sphynx at January 16, 2014 12:24 PM (OZmbA)

369 No answer on why it is okay to legalize pot but not meth or downers then?

Ok so "freedommm" is not really the thing it is "my cookie"...

ok not a problem but it does sorta alter the moral timbre a bit.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 12:24 PM (TE35l)

370 Yeah, don't bother to read any of the fucking science and just repeat the word "correlation". Genius fucking argument. smoking and lung cancer is just correlation too, right? jesus.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 16, 2014 12:25 PM (ZPrif)

371

"The state is less likely to splatter you across a wall if you either compete with them or steal from them."

Then legalizing marijuana will lead to exactly the same end - there will be illegal marketers and they will be as violent as usual. And the state will still be after the illegal marketers not because marijuana is illegal, but selling without a license and collecting the taxes is.

They didn't nail Capone for homicide or bootlegging or anything but tax evasion.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - We Have the HRC Designer Vindictivenous Line Exclusively! at January 16, 2014 12:25 PM (hLRSq)

372

I give a fuck whether pot is decriminalized or not, but I too dislike dishonest arguments for it, the two worst being;

1. prisons are filled with non violent violators of marijuana laws. No they're not. It would usually take multiple possession arrests for anyone to get anything more than county jail time, unless a weapon is involved or you were arrested in Mayberry. It takes having enough weed to violate drug trafficking statutes to get sent to prison, and that threshold is pretty high.

2. Legalization takes the violence out of the drug trade. Nope. Drug cartels are violent because that is all that they know, because they're savages. Anyone seriously think legalizing drugs is going to make these people stop using violence to make money?

Posted by: UGAdawg at January 16, 2014 12:25 PM (xZ8Ay)

373 another point is that it is a fucking plant. What kind of tyrannical asshole state would try to outlaw a weed? And if they can, why don't they do something useful and outlaw dandelions or crabgrass as that my lawn doesn't look like shit. Laws absolutely have to consider practicality. Like prohibition, this war was lost before it started.

Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at January 16, 2014 12:25 PM (LWu6U)

374 Pot is a gateway to other drug use. So where does this end? When they have milked pot for all the tax money they can get- do we move to cocaine legalization?

Crime follows pot use, or any drug, because of the effects it has on your body and judgment. The majority of crime occurring around pot use is not related to the criminality of possession or distribution.

Posted by: Pass the Doritos Dude at January 16, 2014 12:25 PM (GGCsk)

375 370 tangonine at January 16, 2014 04:24 PM (x3YFz)

Well there's that, but so long as people are reempowered to take the law into their own hands when their property is imperiled I am game...

Oh wait...Libertine left doesn't support THAT liberty do they?

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 12:25 PM (TE35l)

376 Well, my name's John Lee Pettimore

Posted by: Sphynx at January 16, 2014 04:24 PM (OZmbA)

Oh yeah, Steve Earle definitely needs to be in my list above.

Posted by: Country Singer at January 16, 2014 12:26 PM (L8r/r)

377 One time I got addicted to meth just from reading an article about it in Time magazine.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 16, 2014 12:26 PM (+lsX1)

378 193 That is, people seeking illicit drugs are often basically self-medicating, and that introduces the possibility (or probability) that they have a pre-existing condition they feel the need to medicate.

Try living with SUD (Serotonin Uptake Disorder.) Try living with the constant, chronic, diabling insomnia. Try having a body that can't regulate it's own temperature. Trust me, you don't.

The legal drugs turn you into a fucking zombie and make you sound and act drunk...which is NOT conducive to keeping one's job (among other things.)

Pot is the single most effective treatment I've ever found for my disorder, and my government makes me a criminal for pursuing it.

Just like they made a criminal of my brother when he was dying of cancer and pot was the only relief he got while dying a painful, horrible death. (RIP Tony my brother!)
Posted by: BlueStateRebel

( Tips bush hat at Tony....)

After my dead Miss Emily had that horrible neck surgery- "one hour & go home that day" turned into all-day surgery and 36 hours in the hospital. Her Doc wrote scripts for codeine tabs- which worked but left her slow and rather stupid....

She died before I could get around to it but I really thought about getting her some dope to smoke. She had smoked a ton of it at JU- and in the Jax symphony.

I honestly can't see any moral difference between that, having a drink, or popping a pill.

I think the stuff should be regulated and taxed like alcohol-- restricted but not illegal. Get some money off Devil Weed...

Posted by: backhoe at January 16, 2014 12:26 PM (ULH4o)

379 We're going to keep something criminal because the 0.1% of the population which may become schizophrenic at one point has a 20% elevated incidence of it due to marijuana?

We banned drop-side cribs after a dozen babies were killed in 15 years.

Posted by: HR at January 16, 2014 12:26 PM (ZKzrr)

380 Okay catch you all alter-- Music for this thread Ted Nugent It's a Free For All! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c2OM7HEfrs

Posted by: Doobie Hits for $100 at January 16, 2014 12:26 PM (RJMhd)

381 You know EoJ, if Steve isn't sucking your dick through a hole in the wall, you might be gay. Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 04:23 PM (UHS5k) ------------------------------- That is so stupid. It's not gay if you're the one getting the blowjob.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 16, 2014 12:26 PM (CJjw5)

382 Chronic smoking of the chronic can make you impotent

Posted by: Chris Christie at January 16, 2014 12:26 PM (40iHk)

383 I know people who started regular use far after adolescence, and as their use got heavier, their tinfoil hats got shinier... without fail. They really thought they were becoming more liberated thinkers, but they just got dumber and sillier. It has been sad to see people I care about fall off the with-it bus. People I know who started early in life and sustained use into adulthood just turned out to be slacker types, but not paranoid loons.

Posted by: Yeppers at January 16, 2014 12:27 PM (8jJUW)

384 376 Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at January 16, 2014 04:25 PM (LWu6U)

so is hashish and opium...

they are trying to outlaw water and nicotine a drug whereby they make billions...

if you're looking for sanity, logical consistency, or ethics from the feds you're looking in the wrong place.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 12:27 PM (TE35l)

385 Leer on face, no lead in pencil

Posted by: Chris Christie at January 16, 2014 12:28 PM (40iHk)

386

Posted by: Freedom Man at January 16, 2014 04:20 PM (KOp/H)

With an advocate like you how could any position you support be wrong?

Posted by: Mikey NTH - We Have the HRC Designer Vindictivenous Line Exclusively! at January 16, 2014 12:28 PM (hLRSq)

387 Limp noodle

Posted by: Chris Christie at January 16, 2014 12:28 PM (40iHk)

388 Never before have I turned on you You looked too good to me Your beady eyes, they can cut me in two And I just can't let you be It's a free-for-all and I heard it said You can bet your life Stakes are high and so am I It's in the air toni-i-ight I see you there with your cheshire grin I got my eyes on you Shake your tailfeathers in my face And there's no tellin' what I'll do Well looky here, you sweet young thing The magic's in my hands When in doubt I whip it out I got me a rock 'n' roll band It's a free-for-all It's in the air to--night. SUCK IT!

Posted by: Doobie Hits for $100 at January 16, 2014 12:28 PM (RJMhd)

389 382 HR at January 16, 2014 04:26 PM (ZKzrr)

We've functionally banned nuclear power over under 20 deaths and an incidence rate that is ridiculously low...

I mean I am ALL IN FAVOR if it means we get regulatory sanity back...but that is not really what they are after is it?

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 12:28 PM (TE35l)

390 Charlize promised me the back door if I melted down my guns but there's no way I'm giving up my weed.

Posted by: Sean Spicoli at January 16, 2014 12:29 PM (dvRYt)

391 2. Legalization takes the violence out of the drug trade. Nope. Drug cartels are violent because that is all that they know, because they're savages. Anyone seriously think legalizing drugs is going to make these people stop using violence to make money?

Posted by: UGAdawg at January 16, 2014 04:25 PM (xZ8Ay)

And even if legalization were to decrease the illegal sale of marijuana, like the cartels are going to suddenly STOP. They'll just amp up production of other drugs. More cocaine, more meth, more heroin, more crack. And they'll still sell weed cheaper than the legal weed stores, and they'll sell it to people who are too young to buy it legally.

When you make money doing illegal things, you're not going to suddenly take a pay cut because part of your trade got legalized. You just break other laws to make up the difference.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/i][/u][/b] at January 16, 2014 12:29 PM (4df7R)

392 Like trying to hammer a wet breadstick

Posted by: Chris Christie at January 16, 2014 12:29 PM (40iHk)

393 Correlation!!11!!, man. It's all just correlation!! I'm a sciencetician, man!! I know these things!!

Posted by: CorrelationIsMyCausation at January 16, 2014 12:29 PM (ZPrif)

394 I mean I am ALL IN FAVOR if it means we get regulatory sanity back...but that is not really what they are after is it?

Nope, not at all.

Posted by: HR at January 16, 2014 12:29 PM (ZKzrr)

395 I don't want weed and cocaine legalized because otherwise you'll all end up as awesome as I am!

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at January 16, 2014 12:29 PM (tv7DV)

396 Look, I'm chill on folks having their somethin' somethin' so long as I'm not having to pay or suffer for it. And me, I say the decisions should be state or local level. The thing is, it's like I said...once your 'freedom' requires me to subsidize it, the door shuts. You want weed? Don't ask me to pay for you to be on the dole if you can't keep a job! Meth? Deal with your own medical aftermath and fiery death! Booze? Hope you can pay for that liver transplant! Act a fool on any of those? Hey, if you don't want me shooting you in the gut, you shouldn't get hopped up on bath salts and try to eat my face off! Unfortunately, that's not what legalization is about. It's about getting your binky in the context of "and someone else pays for my consequences". No. Deal.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, still chilly at January 16, 2014 12:31 PM (naUcP)

397 Argh NTLDR is missing, stepped away for coffee, the machine goes into hibernation and wakes to NTLDR is missing. the day is shot.

Posted by: Jean at January 16, 2014 12:31 PM (4JkHl)

398 Heh. Forgot the O-Care Variety Show was on today live. But the screen is just 'Tell A Friend, Get Covered' Don't tell me they managed to botch the shit out of this as well.

Posted by: RWC at January 16, 2014 12:32 PM (fWAjv)

399 And even if legalization were to decrease the illegal sale of marijuana, like the cartels are going to suddenly STOP. They'll just amp up production of other drugs. More cocaine, more meth, more heroin, more crack. And they'll still sell weed cheaper than the legal weed stores, and they'll sell it to people who are too young to buy it legally.

Exactly! This is why the mafia makes so much money from bootlegging gin and selling it to teenagers!

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 16, 2014 12:32 PM (+lsX1)

400 Two different things, Flatbush Joe.

Lung cancer and smoking is a proven correlation.

Schizophrenia and pot smoking is not.

I did not smoke pot, period. Schizophrenia hit me in my mid twenties, which is when people with a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia generally get it, at the onset of adulthood, when the brain stops growing.

Posted by: Kristophr at January 16, 2014 12:33 PM (c6N69)

401 One thing I question is the claim that pot increases the incidence of, and exacerbates the severity of, schizophrenia and psychotic breaks.

THC is fat soluble. Myelin is fat.

Smoking pot during the brain's Myelinization of your teen and young adult years will screw up that process. So, yes, pot will increase mental issues dealing with poor Myelinization (from seizures to psychotic breaks).

Posted by: Bolt at January 16, 2014 12:34 PM (OEaEg)

402
NO INCANDESCENT LIGHTBULBS ALLOWED!.... but go ahead a smoke a doobie in the dark.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 16, 2014 12:34 PM (n0DEs)

403 #400

How old is the machine? Is there a floppy drive and is there anything in it? That was once the most common cause of that error. Also CD/DVD drives if they're set to be first in the boot order.

Posted by: Epobirs at January 16, 2014 12:34 PM (bPxS6)

404 So, are we going to have to endure another massive Public Service Announcement campaign, like the never-ending "Don't Drink and Drive" thing?

Posted by: grammie winger at January 16, 2014 12:34 PM (P6QsQ)

405 361 bonhomme at January 16, 2014 04:22 PM (P7Wsr)

Meth was as "illegal" as valium...

you went to the doc and you asked for Meth...

it was semi-uncontrolled until 1970 when they went after injectable meth.

Dad was a long haul trucker on speed a lot as were plenty of truckers.

Fact is pills were socially acceptable until the 80s.

Again why should "my" old cookie be outlawed?

and that's the thing where does it end?

I am absolutely okay with pot being legal, but DO NOT pretend you are ending the drug war or impingement on liberty if your goal is only to get an armistice for your cookie.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 12:34 PM (TE35l)

406 FFS, it is broke - at least on the 'get covered' website. It is working on youtube and they have an astounding 713 people watching it. Right now is the healthy cooking part I guess.

Posted by: RWC at January 16, 2014 12:34 PM (fWAjv)

407 I don't want to read all the comments to see where you guys stand on this, so I hereby take the opposite position that most of you are advocating and question your intelligence for holding said opinion.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 16, 2014 12:34 PM (SY2Kh)

408 The legislature here in Washington is now considering no longer making it a felony to possess other drugs like heroin and meth because innocent drug users are being incarcerated just because they have meth in their pockets. So, basically I believe the "legalize everything" crowd will soon be getting their wish.

Posted by: Paranoidgirlinseattle at January 16, 2014 12:34 PM (RZ8pf)

409 Going to interesting to see how the Zeta cartel goes Six Sigma after legalization - silver or lead, becomes black belt or death.

Posted by: Jean at January 16, 2014 12:35 PM (4JkHl)

410 399 Brother Cavil, still chilly at January 16, 2014 04:31 PM (naUcP)

Cavil I understand your point, but the Libertine left will NEVER allow it so subsidize the fuck out of it all and let nature sort it the fuck out.

Let the bodies hit the floor.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 12:35 PM (TE35l)

411 MWR, you're being silly. You know that once it's legalized, the cartel leaders will celebrate their victory and retire to a nice place in The Villages. Their work is done.

Posted by: Countrysquire at January 16, 2014 12:36 PM (LSJmV)

412 A few observations:

1. "I hate potheads/stoner culture"

That's because as things currently stand, people who don't resemble stereotypical potheads don't generally let it be known that they use. You'd be shocked at the # of professionals (lawyers, architects, business types, etc.) get high at least occasionally. You'd be shocked at the # of people who enjoy opera, ballet, cinema (not "movies"), classical music, jazz, prog, etc. while stoned. You also would be surprised at the # of people who, when high, would much, MUCH prefer to eat a medium-rare tri-tip than anything that comes out of a bag with a recycle symbol on it.

2. How can we test for it in drivers???

By using its proxy -- observing the ability to drive a car safely. It's not difficult -- if the driver of car A is driving quite fine, then perhaps the driver of car B, who is clearly not driving safely, should be investigated. Oh, he's completely sober? So what? He's the one driving unsafely.

3. I can't stand the smell.

Then eat edibles. Fucking whiner.

4. Pot is the gateway to hard drugs

We all know that one almost complete straightedge who went right from momma's teats to PCP, but you know what, 99.99% of everyone who's ever done anything stronger than Milk of Magnesia has started with momma's teats and then worked their way to alcohol before probably giving cigs a try, and then pot.

You know why? Because nerds who don't drink don't find themselves hanging around people with pot. In fact, jocks are more likely to try to get the nerd to drink than to get high.

5. Pot de-motivates you

But akahol, hoo boy, lemme tell you what it inspired me to do last night! [Rubs beer belly] Oh, wait, when it shows up on FB, I'll fill in as much as I can remember. Pot de-motivates people who are demotivated by anything pleasurable (and see #1). What do you enjoy doing? Do you like to spend all day watching TV? Pot will not motivate you to do otherwise. Do you like to figure out counterpoint to add to songs? Pot will not motivate you to do otherwise. It simply amplifies what you like to do.

Posted by: SFGoth at January 16, 2014 12:36 PM (VGDJR)

413 Exactly! This is why the mafia makes so much money from bootlegging gin and selling it to teenagers! You do know the mafia still bootlegs cigarettes and booze, right? Ever see a pack of cigarettes without a tax stamp? Guns, murder, prostitution, gambling, addictive substances, protection, etc. They still do all that shiz.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 16, 2014 12:36 PM (P7Wsr)

414 Oh yes boys play it sweet for me I was sittin' in my basement I'd just rolled myself a taste of Somethin' green and gold and glorious to get me through the day When my friend yells through my transom grab your coat an' get your hat son There's a nut down on the corner a givin' dollar bills away But I sat around a bit and then I had another hit And then I rolled myself a bomber thought about my momma Looked around fooled around played around while and then I got stoned and I missed it I got stoned and I missed it I got stoned and it rolled right by I got stoned and I missed it I got stoned and I missed it I got stoned oh me oh my It took seven months of urgin' just to get that local virgin With the sweet face up to my place to fool around a bit And next day she woke up rosy and she snuggled up so cosy But when she asked me how I liked it Lord it hurt me to admit I got stoned and I missed it... I ain't makin' no excuses for so many things I uses Just to brighten my relationships and sweeten up my day But when my earthly race is over and I'm ready for the clover And they ask me how my life has been I guess I have to say I was stoned and I missed it...

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at January 16, 2014 12:36 PM (XO6WW)

415 The only problem I have with legalization is that the Feds will be coming for their cut - and soon.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at January 16, 2014 12:36 PM (i5ol1)

416 Courtesy of Shel Silverstein.

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at January 16, 2014 12:37 PM (XO6WW)

417 Nood.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 16, 2014 12:37 PM (cUARf)

418 411 Paranoidgirlinseattle at January 16, 2014 04:34 PM (RZ8pf)

Precisely, why take half-measures when you can meet the Libertines and take the whole fucking measure?

I am sorry about the collateral damage but hey if it makes you rest any easier know you have re-established liberty...in a nation that has functionally outlawed Ben Franklin's Furnace by pen stroke.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 12:37 PM (TE35l)

419 You all do what you want but when weed is legalized I'm dumping my gold and going long in Frito Lay and Hostess.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 16, 2014 12:38 PM (g1DWB)

420 I genuinely believe the way to bring about a reduction in drug use is to remove the forbidden fruit factor by legalization. But we would only get there by passing through a period of serious mayhem as the asshole go nuts with their new toy and self-destruct or have to be put down. Imaging a new Zimmerman case springing up every week.

Posted by: Epobirs at January 16, 2014 12:38 PM (bPxS6)

421 We'll i do have one more problem and that is my appetite is kinda out of whack and my pants are too tight.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at January 16, 2014 12:39 PM (i5ol1)

422 422 You all do what you want but when weed is legalized I'm dumping my gold and going long in Frito Lay and Hostess. --- Go long on Funyons.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 16, 2014 12:41 PM (/Crba)

423 They have an awful lot of representatives? 338. What is that, one for each family?

Posted by: Echo Whiskey at January 16, 2014 12:41 PM (yyko3)

424 I fucking love the stupidity of the "Pot causes demotivation" argument. I give you Colorado you dumb fucks. A bunch of pot heads got motivated, got organized, got out the vote and managed to get nearly a century of prohibition overturned. Those were some fucking motivated potheads. So much for your stupid argument.

Posted by: Freedom Man at January 16, 2014 12:42 PM (KOp/H)

425 Guns, murder, prostitution, gambling, addictive substances, protection, etc. They still do all that shiz.

Well, we'll just legalize all that shiz, too.

Posted by: HR at January 16, 2014 12:43 PM (ZKzrr)

426 Let's set aside pot legalization for a second. Can we outlaw the bands that stoners like? Phish, Widespread Panic, Dave Matthews; can't we just lock them up? Because they all suck

Posted by: UGAdawg at January 16, 2014 12:44 PM (jShXB)

427 I'm actively volunteering to do the much-needed research for a first-hand, truly informed opinion, Ace.

Posted by: CAC at January 16, 2014 12:44 PM (d9SF5)

428 I'll join those saying pot doesn't turn you into a couch potato loser, but a couch potato who takes up pot smoking will become about 10x the loser they already were. I happen to enjoy inhaling a fresh vaped bag of herb before I do my 5 mile runs. But that's mostly because I listen to Phish while I'm running.

Posted by: mugiwara at January 16, 2014 12:44 PM (sFbib)

429 You know, one of the arguments I always hear against the ganja is that it makes you paranoid. But back in the day when I toked, a little not a lot, what little paranoia I had came directly from the notion that I might get arrested for smoking the illegal ganja.

Posted by: Brewdog at January 16, 2014 12:45 PM (ZgUuK)

430 >> You all do what you want but when weed is legalized I'm dumping my gold and going long in Frito Lay and Hostess. Old and busted: "buy the dips" The new hotness: "buy the chips"

Posted by: Andy at January 16, 2014 12:45 PM (aTcb/)

431 The new hotness: "buy the chips" Posted by: Andy at January 16, 2014 04:45 PM (aTcb/) Also Jack in the Box, which picked a side a loooooong time ago.

Posted by: CAC at January 16, 2014 12:46 PM (d9SF5)

432 >>>I fucking love the stupidity of the "Pot causes demotivation" argument. OMG it does. Look, it may not cause it everyone, but then, alcohol does not cause violent tempers and alcoholism in everyone. But you cannot tell me that the diehard stoners, who all seem to share the same weak, feminized, childlike, fey, unaggressive-to-a-fault personality, have not essentially replaced their own personality (no great loss, in most cases) with the Standard Issue Stoner Personality. I have never seen anyone get high and then say "Let's build a fucking bridge or something, I'm bored." C'mon. COME ON MAN. The euphoric stasis effect is the WHOLE SELLING POINT of pot.

Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 12:48 PM (/FnUH)

433
Meh -- I'm gonna catch a buzz and watch Green Acres on Hulu.

Thirteen days without a cigarette. Occasional urges to smoke but nothing I can't deal with. Having an e-cig on hand helps tremendously -- even though I only use it a couple of times a day at most.

I've had it with tobacco. I find it pretty disgusting already. This time I think I'm quitting for good.

Posted by: Ed Anger at January 16, 2014 12:49 PM (tOkJB)

434 I fucking love the stupidity of the "Pot causes demotivation" argument.

I give you Colorado you dumb fucks.

A bunch of pot heads got motivated, got organized, got out the vote and managed to get nearly a century of prohibition overturned. Those were some fucking motivated potheads.

So much for your stupid argument.

Posted by: Freedom Man at January 16, 2014 04:42 PM (KOp/H)

==================

So what is your massive liberty-loving army poised to address next?

Posted by: grammie winger at January 16, 2014 12:49 PM (P6QsQ)

435 >>Also Jack in the Box, which picked a side a loooooong time ago. White Castle Sliders. They aren't even trying to hide it.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 16, 2014 12:49 PM (g1DWB)

436 I think what wigs people out about Pot is this: The stoner brigade seems to take pleasure and interest in little else in life. They talk about pot, incessantly, including to people who don't smoke pot (and who they should therefore guess have no interest in hearing pot stories). They get unreasonably giddy at the thought of or sight of or mention of an inebriant. Yes, people like booze, but they don't all go WHOOOOOOO! at rock concerts just because someone makes a casual reference to beer. Like I said, it seems like they often have little sense of self, and, to make up for this emptiness, turn their personality into the Pot Personality Type, Standard Issue. It's weird, and it's a little alarming, and if they want to further their legalization efforts, they should stop this, and the potheads with the Standard Issue Pot Personality Type should *decline* to appear on television, rather than throwing themselves in front of every camera to scream in glee about a mild euphoric intoxicant. I really like risotto. I do. I love risotto. If I fucking wore Risotto Rice Necklaces and never stopped talking in code (7:45 pm -- the internationally-recognized "Time to Eat Some Risotto" hour) people would think I was pretty weird.

Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 12:53 PM (/FnUH)

437 anyone wanna share a bowl... of risotto? WHOOOOOO!!!! RISOTTO!!! GEORGE WASHINGTON USED TO GROW RICE!!! BUT THE HISTORY BOOKS WON'T TELL YOU THAT!!!

Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 12:55 PM (/FnUH)

438 131 Weed also reduces the # of deaths due to traffic accidents, due to the low speeds.
Posted by: Dr Spank at January 16, 2014 03:42 PM

And forgetting you need to go somewhere in the first place.

Posted by: irright at January 16, 2014 12:55 PM (pMGkg)

439 >>They get unreasonably giddy at the thought of or sight of or mention of an inebriant. Yes, people like booze, but they don't all go WHOOOOOOO! at rock concerts just because someone makes a casual reference to beer. You know who does get unreasonably giddy at the thought of alcohol? Kids. Because alcohol is illegal for them. Anyone who feels strongly about something that is illegal and fights to make it legal sounds like a zealot. Or vice versa. There are court cases going to the Supreme Court over how close to abortion clinics people can protest, is 35 feet too close!!!! Make weed legal and the zealotry gets dialed down immediately.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 16, 2014 12:59 PM (g1DWB)

440 439 ace at January 16, 2014 04:53 PM (/FnUH)

Eh maybe...it'd be like me going on an interview about a truck wreck and ranting about gun control I guess...

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 12:59 PM (TE35l)

441 They get unreasonably giddy at the thought of or sight of or mention of an inebriant. Yes, people like booze, but they don't all go WHOOOOOOO! at rock concerts just because someone makes a casual reference to beer. Then explain my success.

Posted by: Toby Keith at January 16, 2014 01:00 PM (UHS5k)

442 Risotto? HERETIC! KILL THE UNBELIEVER!!

Posted by: Pastafarian Fundamentalist at January 16, 2014 01:00 PM (pMGkg)

443 They get unreasonably giddy at the thought of or sight of or mention of an inebriant. Yes, people like booze, but they don't all go WHOOOOOOO! at rock concerts just because someone makes a casual reference to beer. You might want to think about Toby's point.

Posted by: JImmy Buffet at January 16, 2014 01:00 PM (UHS5k)

444 Why protest legalization, reich-wingers? I thought you liked freedom?

Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, Vermont at January 16, 2014 01:01 PM (4hwtR)

445 If I fucking wore Risotto Rice Necklaces --- So...you don't want the bacon cologne, bacon necklace and bacon t-shirt?

Posted by: Jenny Hates The French at January 16, 2014 01:01 PM (pki4z)

446 I agree with Toby's point in this sense: A large number of people are able to enjoy alcohol without it dominating their lives and personalities. Of course there are a large number of pot-users who can similarly appreciate the drug's euphoric inebriation without deciding to replace their personality, drive, and individuality with the Standard Issue Pot Personality Type.

Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 01:02 PM (/FnUH)

447 btw, most conservative potheads don't have the Standard Pot Personality Type. I think their deep reservoirs of HATE provide some immunity to the "everything's cool, maaaan" effect.

Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 01:04 PM (/FnUH)

448 This thread smells of skunk and evil, but mostly evil.

Posted by: Fritz at January 16, 2014 01:04 PM (UzPAd)

449 Of course there are a large number of pot-users who can similarly appreciate the drug's euphoric inebriation without deciding to replace their personality, drive, and individuality with the Standard Issue Pot Personality Type. Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 05:02 PM (/FnUH) The Blazed Obsessed Ne'r-do-well Gang.

Posted by: CAC at January 16, 2014 01:05 PM (d9SF5)

450 435 >>>

But you cannot tell me that the diehard stoners, who all seem to share the same weak, feminized, childlike, fey, unaggressive-to-a-fault personality, have not essentially replaced their own personality (no great loss, in most cases) with the Standard Issue Stoner Personality.

I have never seen anyone get high and then say "Let's build a fucking bridge or something, I'm bored."

Posted by: ace

Re: the first part, how can you tell the difference, Ace? Seems like you've washed your own argument.

Second, again, what kind of marijuana users do you know? (Hopefully not the kind that *build* bridges while on any kind of recreational substances.) If you like busting out the CAD and designing bridges, you'll do that when you're stoned -- OMG THIS BRIDGE DESIGN IS GODLIKE!!! Maybe

"C'mon. COME ON MAN. The euphoric stasis effect is the WHOLE SELLING POINT of pot."

I don't know what you mean by "stasis" but last night I had great euphoria playing keyboards along to English country dance classics like "Collier's Daughter", "Solingsvalsen" (actually Swedish), and so on. While I didn't move very far, my fingers were certainly not static.

THC (sativa) enhances whatever gives you pleasure. And now, I'm going to go work on a counterpoint in Dm I started last night, while stoned.

Posted by: SFGoth at January 16, 2014 01:05 PM (VGDJR)

451 I agree with Toby's point in this sense: A large number of people are able to enjoy alcohol without it dominating their lives and personalities. Of course there are a large number of pot-users who can similarly appreciate the drug's euphoric inebriation without deciding to replace their personality, drive, and individuality with the Standard Issue Pot Personality Type. Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 05:02 PM (/FnUH) of course. but, then we're back to kissing ashtrays...

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 16, 2014 01:06 PM (IXrOn)

452 450 ace at January 16, 2014 05:04 PM (/FnUH)

My deep well of hate saves me a lot on my heating bill in the winter....

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 01:06 PM (TE35l)

453 Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 05:04 PM (/FnUH) Most Conservative Heads are Type - 'A' people. They actually do get high and build shit. Shit that works.

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 01:07 PM (UHS5k)

454 I'm the same way, but with hay. Posted by: Lisa Douglas -------------------------------------- I've got a penthouse view you would just adore!

Posted by: Mr. Haney at January 16, 2014 01:07 PM (TCqhy)

455 Wait...no that's wrong.

Posted by: CAC at January 16, 2014 01:07 PM (d9SF5)

456 "They get unreasonably giddy at the thought of or sight of or mention of an inebriant. Yes, people like booze, but they don't all go WHOOOOOOO! at rock concerts just because someone makes a casual reference to beer."

Actually, they do. Recall that 'Red Solo Cup' was a big hit recently. This was a song not about booze but the disposable vessel from which it is consumed, that got the same level of excitement as a reggae song about a bong.

This is part of the forbidden fruit factor. We're free to talk about the forbidden fruit, so the adherents get every dreg of pleasure they can from discussion of it. Prohibition not doesn't work, it makes us stupid along the way. So stupid we would take items that were largely unknown to the general public, make them famous and their trafficking extremely profitable. It just doesn't work, unless your goal is the creation of criminal empires and hit cable series about same.

Posted by: Epobirs at January 16, 2014 01:08 PM (bPxS6)

457 "OMG it does. Look, it may not cause it everyone, but then, alcohol does not cause violent tempers and alcoholism in everyone. But you cannot tell me that the diehard stoners, who all seem to share the same weak, feminized, childlike, fey, unaggressive-to-a-fault personality, have not essentially replaced their own personality (no great loss, in most cases) with the Standard Issue Stoner Personality. I have never seen anyone get high and then say "Let's build a fucking bridge or something, I'm bored." C'mon. COME ON MAN. The euphoric stasis effect is the WHOLE SELLING POINT of pot. Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 04:53 PM (/FnUH)" This is such a stupid argument. Ever seen an alcoholic? By your logic because some people overdo it no one should have it. Well on those grounds I think we need to outlaw: * guns. Some people kill other people with them * alcohol. Some people get drunk and punch on * cars. Some people drive dangerously and cause accidents * tylenol. Some people take too much and kill themselves * chocolate. Some people eat too much and get morbidly obese. Seriously I'm sick of you fucks who want to tell me how to live MY LIFE. Get in my face fuckers whilst I'm having a toke and I'll drop you like a motherfucker.

Posted by: Freedom Man at January 16, 2014 01:08 PM (KOp/H)

458 Can we all agree that IPA beer tastes like bong water? GOOD bong water...but still bong water? I've yet to find a good one that didn't leave me feeling like I had a mouth full of compost.

Posted by: CAC at January 16, 2014 01:09 PM (d9SF5)

459

Posted by: CAC at January 16, 2014 05:09 PM (d9SF5)

Lakefront makes a good IPA

Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 01:11 PM (bStrg)

460 Get in my face fuckers whilst I'm having a toke and I'll drop you like a motherfucker. Posted by: Freedom Man at January 16, 2014 05:08 PM (KOp/H) Are you stoned? Because you obviously did not comprehend what Ace wrote. At all. Put down the bong for a minute, man.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 16, 2014 01:11 PM (IXrOn)

461 IPA sucks. Hoppy, nasty shit. Try a Double Bock. Perhaps a Celebrator ?

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 01:11 PM (UHS5k)

462 >>>Get in my face fuckers whilst I'm having a toke and I'll drop you like a motherfucker.<<<

Take a toke, and mellllllow, brah.

Posted by: Fritz at January 16, 2014 01:12 PM (UzPAd)

463 Get in my face fuckers whilst I'm having a toke and I'll drop you like a motherfucker.<<< Take a toke, and mellllllow, brah. Posted by: Fritz at January 16, 2014 05:12 PM (UzPAd) hehe yeah, no joke He'll drop you in his head, in slow motion...

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 16, 2014 01:14 PM (IXrOn)

464

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 16, 2014 05:14 PM (IXrOn)

if Slo-Mo was a real drug, I would use it

Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 01:16 PM (bStrg)

465 Lakefront makes a good IPA Posted by: The Dude at January 16, 2014 05:11 PM (bStrg) I heard the same about Stone's, but I'll give it a shot. Do you know if they sell it at BevMo?

Posted by: CAC at January 16, 2014 01:20 PM (d9SF5)

466 To each his own. I think IPAs go great with a sharp cheese.

Posted by: toby928© beating memes to death since 2006 at January 16, 2014 01:21 PM (QupBk)

467 if Slo-Mo was a real drug, I would use it It's my favorite shower setting.

Posted by: garrett at January 16, 2014 01:21 PM (UHS5k)

468 He'll drop you in his head, in slow motion... NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Posted by: toby928© beating memes to death since 2006 at January 16, 2014 01:22 PM (QupBk)

469 Get in my face fuckers whilst I'm having a toke and I'll drop you like a motherfucker.

But pot is not addictive, does not cause violence and will not make users paranoid.

Got it, thanks.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 16, 2014 01:23 PM (5ikDv)

470 This thread was going to 1000, but then we got high ...

Posted by: toby928© beating memes to death since 2006 at January 16, 2014 01:27 PM (QupBk)

471 Pot is easy to grow and sell, so it is a perfect under-the-table business for the lazy pothead. Ace, you should not assume the average weed guy is doing it for the cash. In fact, I assume it doesn't generate that much money. I have a strong suspicion that the preponderance of weed guys support their habit and Ace of Spades lifestyles and not much else.

Posted by: Meekle at January 16, 2014 01:30 PM (kqHcW)

472 180 oh good here come X to call people fascist... Posted by: Sven I've already had one commenter apologize to me for making this claim. you gonna provide a link?

Posted by: X at January 16, 2014 01:31 PM (KHo8t)

473
When I first got into driving I became a bit of a motor-head. Same with shooting, fishing and lots of things.

Most people eventually outgrow the obsession with it. Those who don't would probably wind up at the end of a bar every night otherwise. The didn't go to college or pay attention in high school types. The couple thousand people who like all of the Cheech and Chong movies.

The biggest reason why people become infatuated with it is because it's illegal. You have to go way out of your way to make up for it.

Posted by: Ed Anger at January 16, 2014 01:32 PM (tOkJB)

474 475 X at January 16, 2014 05:31 PM (KHo8t)

You gonna lick your own nutsack?

Calling me a statist who likes seeing people jailed is near enough for govt work stud.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 01:35 PM (TE35l)

475 you do want people jailed. by the state. that's what's in the laws you don't want changed.

Posted by: X at January 16, 2014 01:40 PM (KHo8t)

476 btw, most conservative potheads don't have the Standard Pot Personality Type.
I think their deep reservoirs of HATE provide some immunity to the "everything's cool, maaaan" effect.
Posted by: ace at January 16, 2014 05:04 PM (/FnUH)

None of my co-workers have the slightest idea I smoke pot. I don't feel some need to tell it to everyone like some of the stoners you mentioned before. It also helps that I'm always on time, reliable, and have never taken a sick day.

Though I did make a Dem coworker's head explode when I told him I was at the Phish NYE show.

Posted by: mugiwara at January 16, 2014 01:43 PM (3a584)

477 478 X at January 16, 2014 05:40 PM (KHo8t)

Go hug a fucking rainbow, I support structural decriminalization with the state having the power to ban substances...

I am tired of you arguing with your imaginary friend.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 01:48 PM (TE35l)

478 @480

But remember , sven : Pot is not addictive!

Would love to see the "legalize the Preciousssss" army get after it on elimination of welfare.

Course that would mean paying for their own soma.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 16, 2014 01:52 PM (5ikDv)

479 Can someone explain why an encroaching welfare state and legalized booze is OK but a welfare state and legalized pot is not OK? Why is it no one passes judgement on a dude having a few cocktails after a day of work. I get the feeling that so much of this discussion comes down to tribal bullshit. And I hate the fact that these threads always make me feel like I need to defend myself as a daily toking tax paying successful member of society.

Posted by: EM August at January 16, 2014 01:53 PM (be7oN)

480 481 noone, really at January 16, 2014 05:52 PM (5ikDv)

I understand the tide and I know the GOP lacks the will to legalize it correctly...

so subsidize it and immobilize people with it...

let the bodies hit the floor.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 01:54 PM (TE35l)

481 482 EM August at January 16, 2014 05:53 PM (be7oN)

Who says it is ok?

Of course, given one is legal and the other isn't...

You *are* going to join me in subsidizing both yes?

I support giving as much as they can stand.

My mom was a drunk had the state been wise enough to subsidize her boozing like Ted Kennedy's she'd have been dead by my 13th birthday probably...

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 01:56 PM (TE35l)

482 I don't get it EoJ, I am probably the most pro-legalization guy here to the point I am willing to subsidize it to the poor and they still treat me like I am a party pooper.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 04:22 PM (TE35l)

I know, right? I don't get Ace's argument with you, so strange.

Posted by: [/i]KG at January 16, 2014 01:56 PM (p7BzH)

483 I will take stoners seriously as soon as I see the pot army sign a paper waiving any government assistance.

Reality is that EBT will, in fact, buy the soma for the drones. Gotta make more LIVs, ya know.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 16, 2014 01:58 PM (5ikDv)

484 by the way EM inflicting casualties as a soldier is legal why isn't murder?

because two wrongs serve society better than one...or two rights I guess...

or what the fuck ever dude just let me have the week, heroin, coke whatever

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 01:58 PM (TE35l)

485 485 KG at January 16, 2014 05:56 PM (p7BzH)

I have how many thousands of posts decrying subsidy and I am even willing to subsidize their cookie...

I don't get it how much more am I expected to cave to make it ok?

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 02:00 PM (TE35l)

486 The argument that legalization is only ok if people waive their rights is dumb in the greater context of the many many other things that people do to harm themselves while still qualifying for the social safety net. I think if people want to buy a 64 oz soda they should waive their rights to welfare. How about that!

Posted by: EM August at January 16, 2014 02:00 PM (be7oN)

487 Because my tax dollars pay for it, EM.

Welfare comes from taxpayers.

I like sven say Let It Burn! Legalize it all! 64 oz sodas and Heroin!

But first you will agree that I don't have to pay for it.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 16, 2014 02:03 PM (5ikDv)

488 But first you will agree that I don't have to pay for it.
Posted by: noone, really at January 16, 2014 06:03 PM (5ikDv)

I can agree to that, however, the agreement comes second. You know what comes first.

Posted by: Mel Gibson at January 16, 2014 02:07 PM (3a584)

489 yeah, I walked into that one. In my defense Mel rarely comments after 300 or so...

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 16, 2014 02:13 PM (5ikDv)

490 489 EM August at January 16, 2014 06:00 PM (be7oN)

exactly as a matter of fact because the only freedom that matters is pot let's give 10,000,000 dollars to every doper...

You misunderstand EoJ and my argument buddy...

pedal to the fucking floor...

I support giving it to the flat fucking broke for free baby.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 02:15 PM (TE35l)

491 490 noone, really at January 16, 2014 06:03 PM (5ikDv)

Well see that is actually asking for some form of "liberty" as the founders understood the term...

we have "liberty" now where we can do some...and maybe succeed some but by golly here's some rules and some programs...

Trust me you won't mind legalization w/subsidy if we follow the sven plan...

the problem will self-correct

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 02:17 PM (TE35l)

492 170-168???
New Hampshire???

Does everyone get elected to the legislature from that state? The entire population is only 300.

Posted by: Andy at January 16, 2014 02:27 PM (JmqIf)

493 @490 - your taxes already go to millions of people who do destructive things - most notably boozers. What makes booze better than pot? It's more prevalent certainly... Would your time not be better spent trying to get smokers n booze hounds to sign away their welfare benefits?

Posted by: EM August at January 16, 2014 02:36 PM (Q4p8Q)

494 496 EM August at January 16, 2014 06:36 PM (Q4p8Q)

EXACTLY drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco is a monstrosity!

That's why the answer is to add pot to that list!

Makes perfect sense....

Legalize it all and subsidize it to the moon.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 02:38 PM (TE35l)

495 "The stoner brigade seems to take pleasure and interest in little else in life. They talk about pot, incessantly, including to people who don't smoke pot (and who they should therefore guess have no interest in hearing pot stories)"

Eh, I think SFGoth addressed this well, with the following observation:

"That's because as things currently stand, people who don't resemble stereotypical potheads don't generally let it be known that they use. You'd be shocked at the # of professionals (lawyers, architects, business types, etc.) get high at least occasionally. You'd be shocked at the # of people who enjoy opera, ballet, cinema (not "movies"), classical music, jazz, prog, etc. while stoned. You also would be surprised at the # of people who, when high, would much, MUCH prefer to eat a medium-rare tri-tip than anything that comes out of a bag with a recycle symbol on it."

I agree. This reflects my own experience with pot. When stoned (an occasional pleasure), I enjoy writing; reading difficult poetry; listening e.g. to Bach; taking photographs; watching e.g. a Tarkovsky movie; etc. Look, there's almost always something weird and slightly offputting about any group of people who make a (particular) "culture" out of some particular pleasure they enjoy, who build their entire identity around it. But the vast majority of people who partake of that pleasure, partake without buying into the (prepackaged, stereotypical) "subculture" a subset of fans have developed around it; they don't identify with it as a "subculture." They integrate the pleasure (occasionally) into their lives, not vice-versa.

Science fiction. Punk rock. Country music. Fashion. Video games. Bicycling. Medieval and Renaissance history. Spanking. Elvis. Comic books. Hiking. Politics. Beer. Hunting. Leather. Graduate school.

There are "subcultures" that have grown up around these things, communities or communal identities that some people immerse themselves in, completely. But most people who occasionally partake of these things, don't necessarily look/ act like, or identify with/ as, members of a particular subculture.

A big part of what made marijuana use (or, made a subset of marijuana users identify with) a "subculture" is (1) the "outlaw" element and (2) the particular historical period in which, though illegal-- and precisely *while* illegal-- it was popular and (more important) visible/ represented in the media (MSM, movies, literature, music etc.): the 60s. That's why so-called "pot culture" has those "hippie" cultural signifiers-- not something intrinsic to pot itself, but a contingent accident of history.

If whiskey was still illegal, I bet there'd be a whole "speakeasy" subculture around it in the present day, with a lot of cultural motifs harking back to the 20's.

Posted by: lael at January 16, 2014 02:49 PM (yrklk)

496 Does everyone get elected to the legislature from that state? ----- Everyone's inner child gets a vote.

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at January 16, 2014 02:59 PM (Yj2Oz)

497

"One thing I question is the claim that pot increases the incidence of, and exacerbates the severity of, schizophrenia and psychotic breaks. Correlation does not prove causation -- and I hope I'm not too out of line in suggesting that people strongly drawn to any kind of neurochemical escape, be it alcohol, pot, or pills, tend to be a little fucked up."

My youngest son is schizophrenic. I can tell you from personal experience that his condition is definitely exacerbated by the use of pot. If he gets high (thankfully, he has not for a couple of years now) his medication basically stops working - not just when he's high, but for several days or weeks afterward.

Which makes sense when you think about it. The antipsychotics he takes basically counter an anomaly in his brain chemistry that leads to high levels of dopamine. The high from pot also alters brain chemistry to cause a person to produce dopamine. The medications he takes do not Â‘fixÂ’ his condition, they just sort of try to adjust his chemistry so that he can function, and in doing so they must strike a delicate chemical balance while conditions are constantly changing. THC throws things off just enough that the meds stops working. Idunno. ThatÂ’s a lay-persons perspective. But I can tell you the IÂ’ve observed this in my son, and IÂ’ve spoken to the family members of many schizophrenics that have said they see the same thing.

Nobody who deals with schizophrenics directly on a regular basis questions whether pot exacerbates the condition.

As far as causation and correlation go, there is clearly a lot of room to debate. My sonÂ’s condition surfaced in his late teens, which is typical for a male. (It tends to appear in women as they enter menopause.) We suspected that he was smoking pot at the time Â– and we now know that he was smoking a lot more than we realized. But I smoked a lot of pot too when I was about that age, and I did not become schizophrenic. Some psychiatrists IÂ’ve talked to believe strongly that there is a causal relationship, others are less convinced. But most of them have advised that smoking pot is probably not good for you.

So maybe in the end it is a lot like alcohol; most people can handle it ok, but some simply canÂ’t. Maybe for some people who are already a little borderline, it introduces one more stress that begins some sort of cascading failure. I donÂ’t know.

But I can tell you what my son believes. In his own words, Â“marijuana perma-fucked my brain.Â”

I get the libertarian argument for eliminating federal restrictions against pot. But IÂ’ve also noticed that the people that seem to be advocating the loudest for legalization are the same ones who keep telling me that government control of other aspects of my life is a good thing. I know that George Soros has spent a fortune working to legalization, and continues to do so.

Why do you suppose that might be?

Posted by: fretless at January 16, 2014 03:34 PM (UpGZI)

498 500 fretless at January 16, 2014 07:34 PM (UpGZI)

They want to be numb legally to the mayhem they empower...

I advocated and argued the moral case....

this is just leftoids getting their woobie.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 03:42 PM (TE35l)

499 Never be all about the risotto --hell people might get the idea that risotto is addictive --or something. And your very addled no talkie about anything else existence would be self refuting to your-- mouth tweets.

Posted by: Jay Z Cheeseman at January 16, 2014 03:46 PM (RJMhd)

500 Get Up, Stand Up..........now what?

Posted by: East Bay Jay at January 16, 2014 04:40 PM (7v8o1)

501 "<i>But IÂ’ve also noticed that the people that seem to be advocating the loudest for legalization are the same ones who keep telling me that government control of other aspects of my life is a good thing. I know that George Soros has spent a fortune working to legalization, and continues to do so.</i>"

A lot of people here have been making this argument or variations of it. According to this argument, the most visible (or "typical") pro-legalization advocates are politically suspect and to be opposed, for reasons such as: they hold other views which are politically objectionable, or they've done objectionable things, or make the wrong kinds of arguments, or are annoying/ distasteful/ repellent as people/ types, socioculturally or aesthetically or whatever. In other words, because pro-legalization advocates-- "stereotypical" pro-legalization advocates-- are objectionable for whatever reason, that itself is a reason to object to the legalization of marijuana as a political position.

This is actually a classical case of "ad hominem" argument (and fallacy). And interestingly, involves its own confusions over correlation/ causation-- not scientifically, but politically. In science, a frequent empirical correlation of 2 things is not by itself enough to determine that there is a causal, essential, or necessary relation between those 2 things. Similarly, in politics, the fact that there is a frequent empirical correlation of 2 political beliefs, or political positions and certain socio-cultural markers or tastes or ethnicities or what have you, does not by itself mean that there is an essential or necessary "ideological" relation between those things. There might be a cluster of things that typically, or stereotypically manifest together (often for historically contingent reasons); but it's something to *essentialize* that cluster and say those things *necessarily* belong together. E.g., only a person of type A could believe or hold political position X.

Which gets into terrain that ace has often (very insightfully) discussed: how people adopt political beliefs or positions not through reason, but motivated by desires and repulsions of sociocultural identification/ differentiation. Because the left dominates the media, this dynamic almost always disadvantages and damages the right. They (left/ MSM) develop narratives and create/ dramatize stereotypes based on certain apparent correlations, and THAT is what their political arguments amount to:

I.e., only someone like A (a distasteful stereotype of some kind: ignorant hillbilly, violent gun nut, racist bigot, theocratic fundamentalist bible thumper, cruel and avaricious vulture capitalist, woman hater, anti-science cargo culter, repressed and repressive pleasure-hating party pooper) would believe or hold position X. (On economics, or illegal mmigration, or Obamacare, or gun control, or anthropogenic global warming, or what have you.) Often this involves purely cultural, pop cultural, markers, or status symbols. Akin to what Amazon does when it "recommends" things: if you like album/ book/ movie/ TV show X, you might like Y. In left-wing politics, if you like or identify with B (whatever socio-cultural thing it might be-- pop cultural or socio-economic status markers or lifestyle etc.-)- i.e. if you're COOL-- you MUST hold or vote Y. Because the only people who do or would hold or vote Z, are the kind of people who are/ like/ identify with C-- something (the media paints as) horribly uncool or ethically abhorrent or intellectually stupid or aesthetically ridiculous.

Well, I don't like this kind of argumentation/ thinking when it comes from the right, any more than I do when it comes from the left. Maybe especially because I'm an odd duck (my political ideology and my socio-cultural tastes are in no way "stereotypically" aligned). But I also think it's politically stupid for the right to do this, because this kind of argumentation (given the left's dominance over the media) is almost always only going to disadvantage the right. Needlessly alienate libertarian-leaning young or independents, whom we probably need to win elections to affect ANYTHING in the actual REAL WORLD.

All of this is not to say that anti-legalization folks here are wrong, i.e. nothing in this comment refutes that as a position. But I only mean to refute a particular kind of argument or reason for holding that position.

Just because others hold a position/ belief for wrong reasons, doesn't mean that position/ belief itself is wrong or can't be right. And if you let that (by itself) determine your own views, that's ad hominem fallacy.

Posted by: lael at January 16, 2014 05:10 PM (yrklk)

502 (Ad hominem fallacy or strawman arguments, which are related.)

Posted by: lael at January 16, 2014 05:16 PM (yrklk)

503 504 lael at January 16, 2014 09:10 PM (yrklk)

Nice epic length post, no sarcasm...

now explain to me precisely how giving the left-wing potheads their cookie on this incentivizes their aiding me in the liberties I want?

See I'll even grant that the pothead is the most noble being walking the planet and I am foolishly fucking up my chance at Nirvana by not imbibing....

Whatever....

What does my granting the pothead the liberty he seeks after he has empowered so many assaults on the liberties I value gain me ANYTHING?

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 05:19 PM (TE35l)

504 505 lael at January 16, 2014 09:16 PM (yrklk)

I challenge you to find a strawman in my argument.

I invoke the equation of political exchange, and I lament that their angle of attack is in error.

I would let them shoot up rocket fuel.

Just quit telling me it is a noble position to end "war on drug" not "drugs" after whinging on it for my whole life.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 16, 2014 05:21 PM (TE35l)

505 now explain to me precisely how giving the left-wing potheads their cookie on this incentivizes their aiding me in the liberties I want?

What does my granting the pothead the liberty he seeks after he has empowered so many assaults on the liberties I value gain me ANYTHING?

It's hard for me to answer these questions, because I don't accept the premise that those who want their cookie here are necessarily "left-wing," or that "potheads" (i.e. those who enjoy pot, or would like to see it legalized, and by virtue of that fact alone) have "empowered ... assaults on the liberties you value."

The way you're framing things, you're conceding pro-legalization entirely to the left. Only the left smokes pot. Someone who smokes pot is necessarily left-wing, and opposes the liberties you value. That's the kind of essentialism I'm trying to counteract.

But I do get where you're coming from. It's hard for me to give a proper response because, though I'm not high at the moment, I've had a little bourbon (heh) and I'm getting sleepy. Plus this stuff is complicated. I meant what I said at the end of my epic-length comment: I haven't provided an argument for legalization, or against anti-legalization; it was only an argument against a certain kind of argument (which kept coming up in this thread) against legalization (or more specifically, against pro-legalizers).

I wouldn't say I've seen strawmen here from you or others, only quasi-strawmen, from a couple people-- e.g. some who said they'd be pro-legalization, or have nothing against legalization, but because ("typical") legalizers made wrong or stupid arguments, this was motive enough to oppose them.

I'm definitely a libertarian conservative, but I do have respect for (the best arguments of) social or cultural conservatives. In some ways this is reminiscent of the gay marriage debate. I'm pro-legalization, and not against gay "marriage" (totally for gay "civil unions" at least), but I'm not knee-jerk about those positions, and I do get some of the legitimate qualms, in terms of empirical socio-economic and cultural consequences, social/ cultural conservatives raise in opposition.

But honestly I think marijuana is much much less complicated and fraught an issue than gay marriage. I do think alcohol, for better or ill, is the actual common sense bar by which its legalization should be judged, and IMO, by that metric, the answer is obvious.

I think a lot of y'all just don't like dirty pot-smoking hippies. Hell, nowadays at my age I prefer a little nice bourbon too). Is being a "pot person" or a "bourbon person" like being a "cat person" or a "dog person"?

Count me as both.

Posted by: lael at January 16, 2014 06:01 PM (yrklk)

506 POT is a weapon being used by the progressive liberal left to clearly and concisely show the utter hypocrisy of the GOP idea of small Govt and low taxes. When some stone pushes you to the ground and FORCES you to inhale then come talk about POT. Till then STHU about it and mind your own business. Conservatives can easily win elections of they would take a Libertarian view of the drug war. Its FAILED and goes directly against Conservative philosophy.

Posted by: Despsier25 at January 16, 2014 06:06 PM (4ZDLm)

507 Dont kid yourselves. Liberals dont want POT legal they actually want control of the market and the TAX money. POT will be another tool for lawyers once most of the cigarette smokers all die off. I want the Govt the E-FF out of everything not Constitutionally enumerated.

Posted by: Despsier25 at January 16, 2014 06:13 PM (4ZDLm)

508 The very idea that OUR Govt has waged a WAR upon ANY inanimate object (drugs) should send Orwellian chills down everyones spines. But no, the POT has infected the GOPs ability to think rationally... Americans have given more power to this corrupt crime syndicate posing as a Govt in the name of eradicating "drugs" than almost any other issue in American history. More people are doing drugs (legal and illegal) than ever and the Police State has the lowest poll ratings since polling began. Do the math Republicans...

Posted by: Despsier25 at January 16, 2014 06:21 PM (4ZDLm)

509 The Drug War has made the nastiest and most corrupt people the most powerful all due to criminality. Time to take the power away from the criminals..

Posted by: Despsier25 at January 16, 2014 06:23 PM (4ZDLm)

510 The Drug War has made the nastiest and most corrupt people the most powerful all due to criminality.

Time to take the power away from the criminals..

I do think this is key. E.g., have we not seen much of the power (and money) granted-- or appropriated-- for the sake of "national security," going to the "drug war"?

And what we've witnessed during the Obama administration-- an IRS, EPA, FBI, and (probably) NSA politically corrupted and exploited for partisan purposes. This is the main reason why I think even the most die-hard conservatives (including social conservatives) should always err on the side of libertarianism. Libertarianism and "limited government" are (or should be) cognate. Because, in contemporary America, governmental power, by its very nature, is much more likely to be abused against *you* on the right. The fourth estate will always be a Rottweiler watchdog under any abuse from the right or a GOP admin, yet disinterested/ blase about any abuse from the left or a Dem admin. Moreover, any government agency/ bureaucracy is especially hospitable to those on the left (especially after 8 years of Obama admin office politics-- god knows how they've purged and infested fed agencies, including the military!).

One of the pro-legalization arguments from the left is that blacks are disproportionately affected in the criminal justice system re marijuana prosecution. That's not my main reason for legalization, but (if true) I consider it a valid one. (It depends on the definition of "disproportionately," of course.)

Libertarianism and libertinism is NOT the same thing. There is an overlap but they're very distinct. At the present moment, this particular point in time, in American political history, the worst libertines are NOT libertarians; and libertarianism as an ethos is tactically and strategically (and also in principle, if you're committed to the American Constitution) the best bulwark for social conservatives' values (their freedom-- their families' and their voluntary communities' freedom-- to live their lives and practice their values as they see fit).

I'm serious: if you're a social conservative, a religious conservative, at the present moment, you have GREAT reason to ally with libertarians. Not pseudo-libertarians (leftist social liberals), but libertarians you might find alien (socially or culturally) yet who sincerely object to governmental infringement of liberty.

But I'd also say the same things to libertarians: politically, your most significant allies at the present moment are probably (IMO) on the right-- and even, especially, perversely, among social conservatives. (After all, nowadays according to the MSM, isn't social conservatism itself, traditional Catholicism or what have you, an "alternative lifestyle"?)

Posted by: lael at January 16, 2014 07:36 PM (yrklk)

511 PS cf "Whiskey Rebellion."

Posted by: lael at January 16, 2014 09:23 PM (yrklk)

512 In Houston, a man, while in his vehicle, gives some loose change to a homeless man standing outside in a parking lot, and then all hell breaks loose. According to KPRC 2 in Houston: After Snider pulled onto I-10, he said a police car with flashing lights and sirens pulled behind him. "I put my hazards on to let him know, 'Hey, I see you,'" said Snider. "This is a really bad part of I-10 to be pulled over on, so I was trying to find a safe place to pull over." Snider said he was shocked by what the police officer did next. "He's screaming. He's yelling. He's telling me to get out of the car. He's telling me to put my hands on the hood," said Snider. Snider said the officer pulled him out of the car, handcuffed him and put him in the back of a police car, as ten more police cars were also pulling up. "They're like, 'We saw you downtown. We saw what you did,'" said Snider. "I was like, 'Are you kidding me? I gave a homeless man 75 cents.'" it's sven's world. we're just living in it.

Posted by: X at January 17, 2014 07:15 AM (KHo8t)

513 1) I dunno if pot is more dangerous than alcohol. 2) I don't much care... I voted in CO to make it legal anyhow. Why? I don't smoke pot, before or after it was legal. I just don't give a rat's ass if you do or not. If your only claim to criminal activity is lighting a joint in your own house... I don't want to pay for a jail cell to hold you. Now if you drive under the influence, or make yourself a hazard to others, or go rob someone. I'll pay for a jail cell to keep you out of society then. But I'll wait until you commit a crime that affects someone other than you before I commit to supporting your incarceration. If you want to smoke pot, or eat hand sanitizer, or huff glue, or butt-chug vodka, or spray condensed air up your nose while in the privacy of your own home... go ahead. If we stop that, we might stop something I enjoy doing in the privacy of my own home. (And those videos were ENTIRELY legal in the countries where they were filmed... and I think the giraffes really enjoyed it to be honest)

Posted by: gekkobear at January 17, 2014 07:40 AM (HZiic)

514 515 X at January 17, 2014 11:15 AM (KHo8t)

Yeah X I have advocated restrictions on the use of money 'tard..

it's okay you're a 'tard though X...my ex was retarded she's an airline pilot now.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 18, 2014 03:21 AM (TE35l)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

399kb generated in CPU 0.235, elapsed 0.3687 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2965 seconds, 642 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.