January 07, 2014

THC Change: 58% Now Say Pot Should Be Legalized
— Ace

THC change. I'm repeating that. I want to make sure you pot-addled stoner burnouts see what I did there.

THC change. Sea Change. Get it? Eh, you'll get it in about five minutes.

Gallup's survey asks, "Do you think the use of marijuana should be made legal, or not?" That leaves open the question of whether commercial production and distribution should be legal as well (as in Colorado and Washington). But other national polls that go beyond marijuana consumption also have found majority support for legalization. In a Reason-Rupe survey last January, for example, 53 percent of respondents said "the government should treat marijuana the same as alcohol." And last month a Public Policy Polling survey in Texas found that 58 percent of respondents either "somewhat" or "strongly" supported "changing Texas law to regulate and tax marijuana similarly to alcohol, where stores would be licensed to sell marijuana to adults 21 and older." The latter finding was especially striking given the state's conservative reputation.

Mary Katherine Ham, who's been a zealous advocate for decriminalization for a while now, got into it with O'Reilly last night.

Video here.

You have to watch this to see how demagogic it is.

O'Reilly played the "You've got a baby. Do you that baby to be smoking pot?" card. Mary Katharine stated that no, she didn't want her kid to smoke pot, but she would exercise parental responsibility to prevent or ameliorate that. He kept telling her she wasn't answering the question, even though she was.

In between O'Reilly's hectoring -- insisting that she didn't mind if her infant smoked pot, and that she wasn't answering his questions (though, you know, she was) -- Mary Katharine managed to state the following:

Freedom is much less likely to be damaging than paternalism in a nanny state.

O'Reilly then promptly informed her she was "babbling."

Let's just note this: The following statement,

Freedom is much less likely to be damaging than paternalism in a nanny state.

...is officially deemed to be "babbling" -- nonsensical, incoherent, and likely due to someone Taking the Pot -- by Bill O'Reilly.







O'Reilly's argument is demagogic. Mary Katharine Ham is making, at heart, an argument about tradeoffs. She agrees with the general proposition that marijuana (like alcohol) is a dangerous drug and should only be consumed, if at all, in moderation.

However, she's decided that downside of criminalization greatly outweighs its upside.

For Bill O'Reilly, however, the matter is quite simple: If you are not in favor of a harsh, zero-tolerance War on Drugs to eliminate The Pot (and how's that working, by the way?), then it you must be okay with babies toking on bongs.

Only maximalist hostility to pot, expressed through support of a criminalization regime, counts as being anti-pot. Anything else is Tolerating Evil.

Maybe we should all Tolerate some things we don't actually approve of, in the hopes that our own disapproved-of habits might be tolerated as well.

Now you don't have to agree with Mary Katharine, but you have to concede that O'Reilly's repeated question, essentially "Will you be Smoking the Reefers with your Baby?," is unfair and itself "babbling."

Dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb. O'Reilly is frequently unfair and dumb, including with people on the left we don't mind seeing getting the unfair and dumb treatment, because, let's be honest, that's their own stock in trade.

But one does notice the unfairness and dumbness when it's one of our own.

Thanks to @rdbrewer4 in the sidebar for this.


Posted by: Ace at 12:46 PM | Comments (1018)
Post contains 679 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Not a fan of BOR. MKH, on the other hand.

Posted by: Erowmero at January 07, 2014 12:49 PM (OONaw)

2 Polling, morons. It's how you shape pubic opinion.

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 12:49 PM (J5lvw)

3 THC change - Hah!

Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 12:49 PM (cQ2Q9)

4 I'd like to roll MKH up and smoke her!


Posted by: dananjcon at January 07, 2014 12:50 PM (wmU4G)

5 I want to make sure you pot-addled stoner burnouts see what I did there. ***** LOL! Oh--shit though MKH is jumping the gun. Colorado isn't going to prove much. It's not a big enough sample size to draw significant conclusions from and then apply those to the nation as a whole.

Posted by: Daley Chicago- LBJ Texas at January 07, 2014 12:51 PM (RJMhd)

6 "He kept telling her she wasn't answering the question, even though she was."

Pretty much par for the course for O'Bully.

MKH should have just said "falafel" over and over again. And then pointed out that Bill can't explain to his audience why that is a thing with him, because of the huge legal settlement Bill's employer had to pay out.

Posted by: torquewrench at January 07, 2014 12:51 PM (gqT4g)

7 BOR is a fcuking douchebag, has been a fcuking douchebag, and will continue to be a fcuking douchebag.

Posted by: Bivalve Curious at January 07, 2014 12:51 PM (aGqSh)

8 I'm against pot smoking since I have to pay for the results via Obamacide and Unemployment benefits ...

Posted by: Adriane... at January 07, 2014 12:51 PM (m3Cp/)

9 I said last year that R's would win if they proposed ending pot illegalization AND demanded immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. But instead the Republicans ran on... nothing.

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 12:52 PM (J5lvw)

10 >>>3 THC change - Hah! Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 04:49 PM (cQ2Q9) THREE minutes later. I was close!

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 12:52 PM (/FnUH)

11 Weed is not taxed and cheeper and moar fun when its illegal. Lefties on the wrong side again. Dumbasses. BIRM.



Posted by: dananjcon at January 07, 2014 12:52 PM (wmU4G)

12 In the global economy now that we are competing for jobs with China and India--what we need to really get the economy "rolling" is-- pot. That'll get us off the couch!

Posted by: Daley Chicago- LBJ Texas at January 07, 2014 12:52 PM (RJMhd)

13

Again, I don't care if pot is legalized or not.

 

I just want it restricted the same way evil tobacco is.

 

Congratulations.....you can smoke pot legally.  Good luck finding any place to smoke it.  Oh, and enjoy having it cost 3 times what it did before legalization once the feds, state, county, city and gawd knows who else gets their tax cut.

 

 

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at January 07, 2014 12:52 PM (xt3Pv)

14 You don't let babies smoke reefers. You start them off on the can pipe. That's how you keep them humble.

Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 12:53 PM (cQ2Q9)

15 I've never understood the big following that O' Reilly seems to have.  If you listen to him for five minutes on anything you can tell he has the intellectual depth of a damp countertop.  He's a walking, talking simulacrum of USA TODAY.


Posted by: B at January 07, 2014 12:53 PM (XyoGP)

16 >>Mary Katharine stated that no, she didn't want her kid to smoke pot, but she would exercise parental responsibility to prevent or ameliorate that. <<

Good luck with that.

That are certain limits set by a social contract. This crosses the line.

Where does this argument stop? At what point do we reach a "rational" ban on substances.

Most of all, I enjoy proponents arguing the false premise that pot is akin to alcohol.

Pure and simple, this is being pushed by state governments (mostly Democrats) who need to find new tax sources. They've couched it in all types of other terms- but that's what it is about.


Posted by: Marcus at January 07, 2014 12:53 PM (GGCsk)

17 I smoked reefers with my baby on our trip to Pakistan.

Oh those cold nights...and warm goats.

Posted by: Barack Obama at January 07, 2014 12:54 PM (P3U0f)

18 I personally don't care, but if pot becomes legal what next? It seems like we've been going through the old frog in the warm water thing.... heating us up slowly to legalized pot, gay marriage , and other social issues till we start accepting it as the new "normal." just my opinion...

Posted by: hello, it's me also a creep-assed cracka.. at January 07, 2014 12:54 PM (9+ccr)

19 Er, well...being a demagogue is pretty much the defining feature of the Bill O'Reilly Brand, eh? He's an anus. And a babbler.

Posted by: Stu-22 at January 07, 2014 12:54 PM (AiYlm)

20 I haven't watched Oreally in years. He's a fucking hack and I can't stand the arrogant prick. MKH was right and I agree.

Posted by: Minnfidel at January 07, 2014 12:54 PM (FciyD)

21 If there was Any single political issue to be indifferent on, it's pot. This is a stupid battle to fight.

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 12:54 PM (J5lvw)

22 >>THC change. Sea Change. Get it? Eh, you'll get it in about five minutes.

I still don't get it.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 07, 2014 12:54 PM (DpEwG)

23 In the global economy now that we are competing for jobs with China and India--what we need to really get the economy "rolling" is--

pot.
___
And 120 months of unemployment...

Posted by: Barack Obama at January 07, 2014 12:55 PM (P3U0f)

24

BOR is an Al Sharpton level moron. 

BOR switches each night who he attacks.  Tonight he'll probably have that insufferable liberal doush Ellis Pellican (or whatever the f*ck his name is) and rip him for 5 minutes just to show the "folks" he's even handed.

Posted by: meh at January 07, 2014 12:55 PM (W2qJe)

25 This post is missing Cheetos.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 07, 2014 12:55 PM (8ZskC)

26 Ayn Rand's book--Fountainhead--that was all about pot right? --At least if Matt Welch is the result. I don't think that guy goes for five minutes without arguing reefer.

Posted by: Daley Chicago- LBJ Texas at January 07, 2014 12:55 PM (RJMhd)

27 Bill O'Relly is basically a blow-hard, who-- in between hawking coffee mugs, T-Shirts and stupidly-conceived, ghost-written novels with dopey titles--is occasionally entertaining, and sometimes right.

Posted by: JoeyBagels at January 07, 2014 12:55 PM (simoH)

28 >>>I'm against pot smoking since I have to pay for the results via Obamacide and Unemployment benefits ... you have to pay for alcoholics as well, but I assume you wouldn't re-criminalize alcohol. I think these "Secondary Effects" arguments are the weakest arguments of all to CRIMINALIZE something. Everyone can always dream up a host of secondary effects that flow from anything you can name, and then there's the pretext for a banning. Big Gulps? Well, they contain a lot of sugar and that increases diabetes and that costs the state money to care for these people so let's ban Big Gulps. Gun ownership? Well a law-abiding citizen may not pose much threat with his gun, but thieves steal guns from citizens, and then they use them commit violent crimes, so if we just ban guns we can stop violent crimes. I think we should try to restrict our criminalizations to things that cause direct, unambiguous harm (mala in se, evil in itself) lest we just start restricting liberty willy-nilly on any pretext we can imagine.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 12:56 PM (/FnUH)

29 Got it.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 07, 2014 12:56 PM (DpEwG)

30 Assemble firing squad!
Formation CIRCLE!
Face CENTER!
Ready!
AAIIM!

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Laughing Maniacally While Throwing Matches. at January 07, 2014 12:56 PM (0q2P7)

31 Tell you what, I will trade the freedon to smoke stupity for my basic constitutional rights any day. M'Kay?

Posted by: maddogg at January 07, 2014 12:56 PM (xWW96)

32 MKH should have just said "falafel" over and over again. And then pointed out that Bill can't explain to his audience why that is a thing with him, because of the huge legal settlement Bill's employer had to pay out.
-
?

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 07, 2014 12:56 PM (Hx5uv)

33 Can I be libertarian and protectionist at the same time and be okay with people growing their own but not letting any foreign weed come in?

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 07, 2014 12:56 PM (SUKHu)

34 >>>I've never understood the big following that O' Reilly seems to have. If you listen to him for five minutes on anything you can tell he has the intellectual depth of a damp countertop. He's a walking, talking simulacrum of USA TODAY. he's a loud, angry simplistic populist. that plays well.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 12:57 PM (/FnUH)

35 Mary Katherine Ham and John Travolta star in LOOK WHO'S VAPING NOW

Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 12:57 PM (cQ2Q9)

36 Bill O'Reilly is a steamroller of wit and logic.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 07, 2014 12:57 PM (8ZskC)

37

Here is when I turned off Bill O'Reilly.  The first time he ever said "he was watching out for the folks".

 

As Papa Mallamutt used to say "when a guy says he watching out for you, grab your rights and your wallet cause he is trying to get both."

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at January 07, 2014 12:57 PM (xt3Pv)

38 My only thing about pot is that it be regulated the same way cigarettes are. Fair's fair.

Posted by: [/i]KG at January 07, 2014 12:57 PM (p7BzH)

39 21 If there was Any single political issue to be indifferent on, it's pot. This is a stupid battle to fight. Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 04:54 PM (J5lvw) ****** Oh I realize that we've lost the argument. Doesn't mean we can't still argue it. You guys are suppose to be all mellow and tolerant. Suck it up.

Posted by: Daley Chicago- LBJ Texas at January 07, 2014 12:57 PM (RJMhd)

40 Frito Lay Co. Reports record sales in CO!!!!

Posted by: Minnfidel at January 07, 2014 12:57 PM (FciyD)

41 "you must be okay with babies toking on bongs." Well, hellz yeah! Wait...Is that wrong?

Posted by: Orlandocon ette at January 07, 2014 12:57 PM (SldZ2)

42 It was illegal until states found a way to tax it.

Now it's OK. You know, it's an issue of individual rights and medicine!

By the way, smoking has been proven to be unhealthy. I know that because I've read all the ads and warnings on cigarettes. I read all the studies including those sponsored by the government. Heck, I support the American Cancer society.

But this is "good" and their are no ill effects?

Gee, will the health care forms now, right next to ask if you smoke, also ask if you smoke the cheeba and give you higher rates?

Posted by: Marcus at January 07, 2014 12:57 PM (GGCsk)

43 >>> Tonight he'll probably have that insufferable liberal doush Ellis Pellican (or whatever the f*ck his name is) and rip him for 5 minutes just to show the "folks" he's even handed. oh god I'd like to punch that guy. Hellican? Something like that.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 12:57 PM (/FnUH)

44 "THC change. Sea Change. Get it? Eh, you'll get it in about five minutes."

giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle
giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle giggle

Oh, we get it. And now we're hungry.

Posted by: Stoner Nation at January 07, 2014 12:57 PM (AiYlm)

45

he's a loud, angry simplistic populist guy on t.v.. that plays well.

 

FIFY

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at January 07, 2014 12:58 PM (xt3Pv)

46 THC change. Sea Change. Get it? Eh, you'll get it in about five minutes. Or not. Still, golf clap.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 07, 2014 12:58 PM (8D0/R)

47 O'Reilly is an asshole. His breezy, I'm-a-reasonable-guy-who-listens-to-all-sides bullshit is lost on me. Sadly, his ratings are good enough and Fox will never even think to can him.

Posted by: the littl shyning man at January 07, 2014 12:58 PM (NZRyg)

48 I don't have a problem with legalization. If someone wants to kill their brain cells so be it....it is not permanent and eventually they will figure that they want more out of life than smoking a noxious weed.

Posted by: Budahmon at January 07, 2014 12:58 PM (bBSSG)

49 Bread, Circuses ... now Weed!

ya, that ought to do it. 

Keep the dumb-masses fed, entertained and stoned, then we can do as we please....as if we weren't already.

Posted by: Paladin at January 07, 2014 12:58 PM (LTquJ)

50 One of the DEA's guys came to speak at a local GOP group a while back. I suggested the government shouldn't call it the "war" on drugs because the public does not like wars that go on forever. He agreed. With Colorado's move and this poll, I think we're seeing the beginnings of the public-relations backlash to an endless "war."

Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at January 07, 2014 12:58 PM (PMZF4)

51 >>> By the way, smoking has been proven to be unhealthy. I know that because I've read all the ads and warnings on cigarettes. I read all the studies including those sponsored by the government. Heck, I support the American Cancer society. But this is "good" and their are no ill effects? ... You're allowed to smoke cigarettes, Marcos. You're pretending as if tobacco use was subject to bans and criminal penalties. It's not.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 12:58 PM (/FnUH)

52 I haven't seen OReally for years, but he used to be pro-decriminalization. Guess the reefer madness so-cons got to him.

Posted by: twit of the year at January 07, 2014 12:59 PM (ywjMQ)

53 O'Really is the mole.

Posted by: 13times at January 07, 2014 12:59 PM (fGPLK)

54 THC Change - that's trippy man.

Posted by: rc at January 07, 2014 12:59 PM (9juRt)

55 If MKH were a strain of marijuana she'd be HempusHottiTaTas.

Posted by: dananjcon at January 07, 2014 12:59 PM (wmU4G)

56 Russia was done in by vodka--- So pot will do what exactly? Remember that USA!! USA!! Protestant work ethic thing? Meet pot.

Posted by: Daley Chicago- LBJ Texas at January 07, 2014 12:59 PM (RJMhd)

57 MKH is hot if you like chipmunks, a tad toothy for my taste.

Posted by: Hamm sandwich? No thanks. at January 07, 2014 12:59 PM (/cUUk)

58 And I find MKH particularly vacuous next to her peers.

Maybe it's the cheeba smoking?

Posted by: Marcus at January 07, 2014 12:59 PM (GGCsk)

59 O' Reilly was on a roll last night. He brow beat another guest in studio, somehow equating texting to pot smoking even after the guest said his kid texted 100 times a day, but still got straight A's at an Ivy league school.

Posted by: herberto at January 07, 2014 12:59 PM (iQx7x)

60 Tonight: O'Reilly accuses a guest arguing that the police shouldn't be able to shoot people with impunity of supporting cop-killers.

Posted by: Stu-22 at January 07, 2014 12:59 PM (AiYlm)

61 DemocRat Choom Gangers are less likely to remember to vote, so we got that going for us.

Posted by: Let The Weed Burn at January 07, 2014 12:59 PM (nbGZj)

62 I think the federal government ought to have to give free pot to anybody who wants it under the puff-suit of happiness clause.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 07, 2014 01:00 PM (Hx5uv)

63 I don't condone gunrunning by children. I'll have to ameliorate that when I have some.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at January 07, 2014 01:00 PM (5xmd7)

64 Demagogic attacks work. Almost all twitter fights are basically demagogic attacks. There's no room for subtlety. Mocking O'Reilly as an old, out of touch white guy terrified of The Pot is a demagogic attack. A good one.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 07, 2014 01:00 PM (ZPrif)

65 Can one of the CO morans set me sum knowledge here. So I usually go to CO a couple times a year for some mountain climbing. This summer I noticed the "wellness" clinics set up, which made some tattoo parlors in the Philippines look ritzy. So to clarify, before you had to walk in with some ailment to get a prescription before they handed over the ganja right? Now it's simple go to the pot store and buy it right?

Posted by: Minnfidel at January 07, 2014 01:00 PM (FciyD)

66 Supposedly brain cells continue to regenerate. But that's probably bullshit too.

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 01:00 PM (J5lvw)

67 62 I think the federal government ought to have to give free pot to anybody who wants it under the puff-suit of happiness clause. Posted by: WalrusRex at January 07, 2014 05:00 PM (Hx5uv) I'm sure I read that in the Bill of Rights...

Posted by: hello, it's me also a creep-assed cracka.. at January 07, 2014 01:00 PM (9+ccr)

68 I'm all for legalization if prices go down as a result.

And MKH naming her baby "Luscious" was a dead give-away on where she stood on the weed issue.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 07, 2014 01:00 PM (DpEwG)

69 It's like the gay marriage thing. The left just keeps pounding away at it and people eventually just give in because they are sick of be hit over the head with it. Not because they actually believe it.

Posted by: Shonuff at January 07, 2014 01:00 PM (gaxli)

70 How much of this 'shift' is people seeing the world going to hell in a handbasket (the economy, unemployment, obamacare) and saying 'Pot? Who gives a fuck about THAT?'

Posted by: --- at January 07, 2014 01:00 PM (MMC8r)

71

You're pretending as if tobacco use was subject to bans and criminal penalties. It's not.

 

Really......light up a cigarette in a public building and see what happens.

Or, try transporting more than 2 cartons from a low tax state (like Missouri or Kentucky) to a high tax state (Illinois) and see what happens.



 

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at January 07, 2014 01:01 PM (xt3Pv)

72 Ok I want to make one point here though before someone comments again that legalizing pot will save us money because the DEA will be unnecessary and it will save on prison costs etc. The DEA isn't going anywhere, there is still a whole host of illegal drugs they are working to keep off the streets (unless you want to go ahead and say "legalize it all"). And contrary to pot-ular belief, the prisons aren't filled with innocent college boys who only had an ounce in their pocket.

Posted by: Paranoidgirlinseattle at January 07, 2014 01:01 PM (RZ8pf)

73 "You're allowed to smoke cigarettes, Marcos. You're pretending as if tobacco use was subject to bans and criminal penalties. It's not. Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 04:58 PM (/FnUH) " Try having a cigar as the sun sets on Malibu Beach.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at January 07, 2014 01:01 PM (5xmd7)

74 Did you ever see a baby try to hold a roach clip?  You want your baby going into the crib holding a lit roach in a roach clip?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 07, 2014 01:01 PM (8ZskC)

75 Maybe we should all Tolerate some things we don't actually approve of, in the hopes that our own disapproved-of habits might be tolerated as well. Bingo. My response to the whole smoking thing, be it tobacco or pot, is that once I lose all the weight I need to lose then I'll open my yap about your bad habits. In the meantime, pass me that pie. On a personal level, I hate drugs. Hate, hate, hate and, yes, that's due to losing people to drug addiction and by losing I mean death. Haaaaaate. On a policy level, don't care. You wanna shoot heroin in your eyeball inside your own house? I do not give a shit if you Darwin yourself so long as you do not Darwin anyone else or demand that I pay for you in any way. In return, you do not get to give a shit if I choose to have a nutritious dinner of Cheetos and Cheerwine and you do not pay for me in any way. Easy peasey.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at January 07, 2014 01:01 PM (VtjlW)

76 Hopefully buying it legally will end the stupid white guy dreadlocks and bad folk music. But probably not. Pot: now as cool as buying a heating pad.

Posted by: Beagle at January 07, 2014 01:01 PM (sOtz/)

77 >>Try having a cigar as the sun sets on Malibu Beach. Posted by: Chris_Balsz at January 07, 2014 05:01 PM (5xmd7) Oh, and keep your hands in the open. Move slowly and deliberately.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at January 07, 2014 01:01 PM (5xmd7)

78 Whatever the intentions, and I'm sure they were sincere and beneviolent, the War on Drugs has come with too steep a price on liberty and justice.  It's time to admit defeat.

Posted by: The toaster and other major appliances agree at January 07, 2014 01:02 PM (QupBk)

79 >>>Really......light up a cigarette in a public building and see what happens. Or, try transporting more than 2 cartons from a low tax state (like Missouri or Kentucky) to a high tax state (Illinois) and see what happens. ... you speak as if people will be allowed to smoke pot in smoke-free buildings. That's absurd.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 01:02 PM (/FnUH)

80 [i[b]]Colorado Pot Shop to Accept Food Stamps – Taxpayer Funded ... www.dailypaul.com › Forums › Daily Paul Liberty Forum‎ 4 days ago - 10 posts - ‎9 authors s of January 1st, 2014, Colorado became the first state in the nation to allow adults aged 21 or ... The decision has led to excessively large lines at pot shops across the state and store ... That which we don't ban, we subsidize. ******* Oh--goodie , goodie gum drops!!

Posted by: Daley Chicago- LBJ Texas at January 07, 2014 01:02 PM (RJMhd)

81 And MKH naming her baby "Luscious" was a dead give-away on where she stood on the weed issue.


That's retarded, sir.

Posted by: LaSagna at January 07, 2014 01:02 PM (8ZskC)

82 If MKH were a strain of marijuana she'd be HempusHottiTaTas. Posted by: dananjcon at January 07, 2014 04:59 PM .......If she was Preznit, She'd be Baberaham Lincoln!

Posted by: Minnfidel at January 07, 2014 01:02 PM (FciyD)

83 >>My only thing about pot is that it be regulated the same way cigarettes are. Fair's fair. Or more so. I think I'd rather my kids smelled cig smoke for a few minutes than pot smoke.

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 07, 2014 01:02 PM (SUKHu)

84 By the way, marijuana is highly addictive. What, you say, it is not generally addictive? The science says it isn't? Not when the first ADA lawsuit hits. Nope, pot addiction will be a disability and you will have to accommodate it. So if your employee feels the need to get high and wander off, well that's just what you'll have to accommodate. And every pothead who feels the "right" to toke will just claim a disability.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2014 01:02 PM (T0NGe)

85 The Left wins partly because they are just better at demagoguery than the Right.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 07, 2014 01:02 PM (ZPrif)

86 He has a following because his flashes of  passion and  occasional  over-the-top anger appeal to certain segments of the center and right  who mistake his histrionics for real argument.

Posted by: JoeyBagels at January 07, 2014 01:02 PM (simoH)

87 And MKH naming her baby "Luscious" was a dead give-away on where she stood on the weed issue.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 07, 2014 05:00 PM (DpEwG)


Wait, really? I'm... guessing there is no man in her life... ( I don't know anything about her)

Posted by: [/i]KG at January 07, 2014 01:02 PM (p7BzH)

88 I am old enough to remember when BOR first started out. My first reaction upon seeing him on FNC was "WTH?! Isn't that the Inside Edition guy?" Afterwards, however, he really won me over. For a few years he was fantastic, then the success went to his head. The demands that come with being on top, such as not alienating most of your viewers came into play, so... he straddled the fence. He's been nearly to completely unwatchable since.

Posted by: Geraldo Rivera at January 07, 2014 01:02 PM (DmNpO)

89

My position has always been, and I think this means I disagree with MKH, is that if we are going  to live in the nanny state  (and we are), then I have a right to tell  people not to do stuff that's going to mean I have to pay for them to live with  their fried brains after they fry them. 

 

Cannabis is a dangerous substance.  It always has been, it always will be.   No amount of tax revenue from legalization is going to pay for the idiot potheads who end up as wards of the state.

 

If  we lived  in a society where we all had to live with the consequences of our actions, it would  be different, but we don't. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 07, 2014 01:02 PM (TOk1P)

90 I say,  go ahead and legalize pot.  Smoke it to your heart's content.  Just  don't be stumbling toward me with your hand out wanting me to pay for your treatment center bill.

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2014 01:02 PM (rJc6l)

91 Fisher Price Bongs.

Posted by: --- at January 07, 2014 01:03 PM (MMC8r)

92 The only salient argument is that high THC damages the growing child's brain, decreases ambition over the long term in most users, causes medical issues especially in pregnancy (very bad) and makes a lot of people "stupid". OReilly is already stupid.

Posted by: MoronNormative Daybrother at January 07, 2014 01:03 PM (fSeG6)

93 so it seems that mostly people are arguing not that fucking with people's choices is a good thing, but rather: "Since I am getting fucked with on cigarettes, it's only right I get to fuck with other people on pot." It seems a better strategy, less offensive to everyone, is to push for people fucking with other people less.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 01:03 PM (/FnUH)

94

So to clarify, before you had to walk in with some ailment to get a prescription before they handed over the ganja right? Now it's simple go to the pot store and buy it right?

Posted by: Minnfidel at January 07, 2014 05:00 PM (FciyD)

Yeah you just walk in and buy it. I recommend the "dab".

Posted by: twit of the year at January 07, 2014 01:03 PM (ywjMQ)

95 Try having a cigar as the sun sets on Malibu Beach. That's how I got Monica hooked.

Posted by: Bill Clinton at January 07, 2014 01:03 PM (cQ2Q9)

96 Better mostly because they have a better platform. But that's part of the game.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 07, 2014 01:04 PM (ZPrif)

97 >>you speak as if people will be allowed to smoke pot in smoke-free buildings. That's absurd. Seattle: >>You might not always see it, but odds are you've at least smelled people smoking pot in public. Now the city is changing its rules to say, even more clearly, that you can't smoke weed in public. >>In a council meeting Friday afternoon, people spoke out with concerns. One Metro bus driver even said he's had passengers blow pot smoke right in his face and create a safety risk. >>"Once that takes place, I feel inebriated, I feel lightheaded, I'm no longer safe as a bus driver to operate that bus, and I then have to notify the county to send another driver out,” said the Metro driver. ... >>To give perspective on how low of a priority this is for the police department, since Initiative 502 went into effect, they've issued zero tickets for public pot smoking.

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 07, 2014 01:04 PM (SUKHu)

98 Well I don't know about Colorado, but here when the stores open yes you will be able to stroll right in and buy some. No doctors note needed.

Posted by: Paranoidgirlinseattle at January 07, 2014 01:04 PM (RZ8pf)

99 It was illegal until states found a way to tax it. Yeah, good luck with that. The illegal stuff is a lot cheaper and since possession is legal, once you buy the illegal stuff, you're free and clear. CO won't get squat in terms of tax money.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2014 01:04 PM (T0NGe)

100 >>You're allowed to smoke cigarettes, Marcos. You're pretending as if tobacco use was subject to bans and criminal penalties. It's not. <<

Illegality is a strawman my friend.

What argument has been used for years in attempt to effectively ban or diminish smoking? It is the health issue.

Notice how that is absent from this discussion? Suddenly supporters are all for the medicine of it. Absent of course, the converse ill effects.

But it's science! Or Individual rights!

Or how about the argument that high taxation will wipe out the practice by making it (cigarettes) too expensive? Oh wait, they will "recoup" the strain put on our health care system. Sure...

Posted by: Marcus at January 07, 2014 01:04 PM (GGCsk)

101 "you must be okay with babies toking on bongs."
-
Combination bong-pacifier. That'll chill the little scream machine out.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 07, 2014 01:04 PM (Hx5uv)

102 O'R still thinks he's on Entertainment Tonight. Well, I guess he is. His show is reduced to having Krut say something, Dennis mock him, two middle age womyn lawyers debate and then wenner or whatever taking video's of LIVs and laughing at them. Oh, I forgot the word of the day. Dickhead.

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 07, 2014 01:05 PM (0FSuD)

103 off damn sock

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 07, 2014 01:05 PM (DmNpO)

104 Keep in mind O'reilly's age and generation. He was raised on a steady diet of Refer Madnessesque propaganda. And as we all know, propaganda is effective.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 01:05 PM (XIxXP)

105 I can tolerate the shit outta stuff not in my occular view. What I refuse to *tolerate* is the shit that's shoved in front of my face.

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 01:05 PM (J5lvw)

106 I hope the unlikely hope that this leads to some 10th Amendment revival.

Posted by: AMDG at January 07, 2014 01:05 PM (t7OO0)

107 O'Reilly played the "You've got a baby. Do you that baby to be smoking pot?" card. Her baby is half prog. Probably already smokes a spliff a day.

Posted by: Plaintiff Pug at January 07, 2014 01:05 PM (Qev5V)

108

you speak as if people will be allowed to smoke pot in smoke-free buildings. That's absurd.

 

Ok, a little hyperbole on my part.  But, to be blunt with you (see, Ace, your not the only one who can do clever little jokes) it was just a retort to the "no criminalization" charge of cigarettes.

 

Again, I don't care.  Legalize, don't legalize whatever.

 

The only rule I have is that the pot historian (you know, the ass clown that is convinced that every Founding Father was stoned when they signed the Declaration of Independence) be outlawed as a nuisance to society.



 

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at January 07, 2014 01:06 PM (xt3Pv)

109 93 so it seems that mostly people are arguing not that fucking with people's choices is a good thing, but rather: "Since I am getting fucked with on cigarettes, it's only right I get to fuck with other people on pot." It seems a better strategy, less offensive to everyone, is to push for people fucking with other people less. Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:03 PM (/FnUH) ****** Ace-- Did you see this? Colorado Pot Shop to Accept Food Stamps – Taxpayer Funded ... www.dailypaul.com › Forums › Daily Paul Liberty Forum‎ 4 days ago - 10 posts - ‎9 authors s of January 1st, 2014, Colorado became the first state in the nation to allow adults aged 21 or ... The decision has led to excessively large lines at pot shops across the state and store ... That which we don't ban, we subsidize. ***** Plus I think there is more to the pot is getting subsidized in Colorado argument--but I have to find it. Saw that argued by some at Patterico-- although they didn't back it with links.

Posted by: Daley Chicago- LBJ Texas at January 07, 2014 01:06 PM (RJMhd)

110 Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 04:56 PM (/FnUH) Eh, draw your defining line though Ace. That's always the problem with the legalization types, they have no "line in the sand" as it were. So why not just legalize everything? Tell you what, come spend a weekend with me, I'll take you down into Meth Country and you can see the end result of that.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 07, 2014 01:06 PM (GaqMa)

111 'My Bongy, My Bongy Wherever I go, He goes My Bongy and me Like to puff in a tree My Bongy and me We're the Best Friends you can be!'

Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 01:06 PM (cQ2Q9)

112 It's all about the Tax Revenue.  It's all about money.

Posted by: JoeyBagels at January 07, 2014 01:06 PM (simoH)

113 /off toaster sock

Posted by: toby928© at January 07, 2014 01:06 PM (QupBk)

114 >>Yeah, good luck with that. The illegal stuff is a lot cheaper and since possession is legal, once you buy the illegal stuff, you're free and clear. CO won't get squat in terms of tax money.<<

True. Now the states are competing with the Mexican drug Cartels.

Maybe they can form a partnership?

Posted by: Marcus at January 07, 2014 01:06 PM (GGCsk)

115 Have not watched BOR since he said that gun owners should be registered, effen tool.

Posted by: NvDude at January 07, 2014 01:06 PM (sV3Dv)

116 We needs to legalize hash as well. Damn fine stuff the hash.

Posted by: Luscious Ham at January 07, 2014 01:06 PM (DpEwG)

117 >>>My position has always been, and I think this means I disagree with MKH, is that if we are going to live in the nanny state (and we are), then I have a right to tell people not to do stuff that's going to mean I have to pay for them to live with their fried brains after they fry them. you're embracing the nanny state faster than I'm willing to. This is how everyone argues for nannying -- "At some point, your personal choices will cost me some trivial amount of dollars, or impinge on me in some slight way, so I get to use the law to coerce you to live otherwise than you'd like." This argument is infinitely strechable and infinitely pernicious. Yes, under the left's theory that we all live in a "Commune" answerable to each other, this makes sense --we're all responsible for each other and therefore we all have the right to boss each other around. But I reject that theory. There must be some basic minimum level of freedom we each have or else this country is... well, it's America 2014. The fact that this country is shit right now should not cause us to argue to make it shittier. We should be fighting to make it better and freer, not worse and less free.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 01:06 PM (/FnUH)

118 I know some twenty somethings that got together and shotgunned a Lab. He ate all the food in his bowl and went to bed.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 01:06 PM (XIxXP)

119 Now it's simple go to the pot store and buy it right?
-
That's right. You walk in looking normal and walk out looking like Debbie Whatsername Schlitz.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 07, 2014 01:06 PM (Hx5uv)

120 Link to what I quoted: http://tinyurl.com/mhpf9cg

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 07, 2014 01:07 PM (SUKHu)

121 You're pretending as if tobacco use was subject to bans and criminal penalties. It's not.


Most restaurants and bars will tell you otherwise.

And train stations, bus stations, parks, your own dwelling (attached) in CA, offices, statdiums....

Posted by: drill_thrawl at January 07, 2014 01:07 PM (/2ciC)

122 I say, go ahead and legalize pot. Smoke it to your heart's content. Just don't be stumbling toward me with your hand out wanting me to pay for your treatment center bill.

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2014 05:02 PM (rJc6l)


The problem, that some others have touched upon, is that *you* don't have a choice.

Posted by: [/i]KG at January 07, 2014 01:07 PM (p7BzH)

123 Did you ever see a baby try to hold a roach clip? You want your baby going into the crib holding a lit roach in a roach clip? Momma gets stoned. Baby hits the right of left bong.....

Posted by: rickb223 at January 07, 2014 01:07 PM (8D0/R)

124 98 Well I don't know about Colorado, but here when the stores open yes you will be able to stroll right in and buy some. No doctors note needed. Posted by: Paranoidgirlinseattle at January 07, 2014 05:04 PM (RZ8pf) ******** Colorado is recreational use, too.

Posted by: Daley Chicago- LBJ Texas at January 07, 2014 01:07 PM (RJMhd)

125 When was O'Reilly ever one of our own?  He's been an Obama salad tosser since jump street, as evidenced by his root tooting interviews with him.  Just sayin'.

Posted by: Pipeholder at January 07, 2014 01:07 PM (VTeUD)

126 The Soothsayer Tolerance Test is a simple question: Do I have to live with Your stupid disgusting irritating or destructive shit? If the answer is No, I shall tolerate it.

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 01:07 PM (J5lvw)

127 Mama AJ's post is correct. Here in the Seattle area they are openly smoking on the streets downtown. And I have been in several places of business where that smell is clinging to the employees. (Mod Pizza I am looking st you). So, yes, despite what the "law" says, it doesn't seem to have any effect around here now that it is legal. Police are discouraged or prohibited from arresting people for smoking pot in public.

Posted by: Paranoidgirlinseattle at January 07, 2014 01:07 PM (RZ8pf)

128

you speak as if people will be allowed to smoke pot in smoke-free buildings. That's absurd.

 

Of course, everything is smoke free today, whether the owner of the building wants it to be or not. 

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at January 07, 2014 01:07 PM (xt3Pv)

129 104 Keep in mind O'reilly's age and generation. He was raised on a steady diet of Refer Madnessesque propaganda. And as we all know, propaganda is effective. Horse shit, he's 64 and a baby boomer. He grew up in the 60's when everyone except dorks smoked dope. Oh, wait.

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 07, 2014 01:07 PM (0FSuD)

130 Shia LeBoef says he's addicted to Lean. What an idiot!

Posted by: Plaintiff Pug at January 07, 2014 01:07 PM (Qev5V)

131 Bill O'Reilly.

Heh.

Has stopped pimping his shallow, poorly written, books yet?

Posted by: tangonine at January 07, 2014 01:08 PM (x3YFz)

132 o it seems that mostly people are arguing not that fucking with people's choices is a good thing, but rather: "Since I am getting fucked with on cigarettes, it's only right I get to fuck with other people on pot."

It seems a better strategy, less offensive to everyone, is to push for people fucking with other people less.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:03 PM (/FnUH)


Ok, please explain why pot should *not* be treated like cigarettes.

Posted by: [/i]KG at January 07, 2014 01:08 PM (p7BzH)

133 The Drug War is over. Drugs won.

Posted by: MaureenTheTemp at January 07, 2014 01:08 PM (hslAc)

134 Posted by: Bill Clinton at January 07, 2014 05:03 PM (cQ2Q9)


"Monica, squeeze me out a Romeo y Julieta 1875 Reserve."

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 07, 2014 01:08 PM (8ZskC)

135 I'm not sure how I feel about this. I used to smoke it, daily, through all my teen years on into adulthood. I was in the service, still smoking it, and got an inkling on Friday of a piss test coming up Monday morning. I still smoked some that Friday night and when I woke up Saturday morning, I remembered my thoughts. That weekend I drank a lot of beer and made a promise to God that I would never touch it again if I could get through this. Sure enough, Monday came and we all got tested. I came back negative and never smoked it again. That was almost 30 years ago. I still have friends who do it and most can handle it. Those who still smoke it every day have never really made anything of their lives. I personally have a dangerous job and do not wish to work beside someone who is stoned all the time. At the same time, I know it is not the boogeyman some people seem to think it is. As with alcohol, as long as you do not allow it to control you it is not really a bad thing. Even today after a particularly tough evening at work there are times I wish I could sit at the couch unwind with a doobie. But it's not for me anymore.

Posted by: Bill R. at January 07, 2014 01:08 PM (QnRSM)

136 Try having a cigar as the sun sets on Malibu Beach.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at January 07, 2014 05:01 PM (5xmd7)

 

 

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

 

 

Or having a pre/post-flight cigerette at an airport.....or having a cigerette near a hospital...........the list is endless.

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2014 01:08 PM (rJc6l)

137 Lets make this very obvious so we can see who the nannying busy-bodies are: I smoke pot on my time off (big shocker there). I've never touched a cigarette but I don't hold any animosity to smokers. I don't really drink, besides a beer or too, or perhaps to try out a home-made cocktail. I've never done any other drug besides what was prescribed to me. Held a fantastic GPA in HS, got a full scholarship, continued my GPA in college. I hold down a good job which has seen steady growth through the recession, helped to take care of a father in law with Alzheimers, have a happy marriage, pay my taxes, I donate to political campaigns, and in what spare time I have, I cob here. Just so we are clear, there are those like Bill O'Reilly who tell you that I am an evil threat to everything you hold dear, because I hit a bong when I'm enjoying time off and away from my adult responsibilities. So clearly, I should be jailed, right? Right? Or just maybe this whole "throw them all behind bars forever and ever huzzah" bullshit is just that- bullshit.

Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 01:08 PM (DqlhY)

138 For instance, I can tolerate the heck outta barky dogs...if'n I can't hear them. So *proximity* plays a big role in Tolerance.

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 01:09 PM (J5lvw)

139 Mmmmm Cheerwine.  brb

Posted by: NC Ref at January 07, 2014 01:09 PM (Myqtp)

140 116 We needs to legalize hash as well. Damn fine stuff the hash. I think we have a quorum!

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 07, 2014 01:09 PM (0FSuD)

141 The problem, that some others have touched upon, is that *you* don't have a choice. Posted by: KG at January 07, 2014 05:07 PM (p7BzH) I argue that most people that smoke pot recreationally live productive tax paying lives. I would say the abuse is along the same percentage as those who drink. Ask a teenager what's easier to get, pot or Alcohol?

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 01:09 PM (XIxXP)

142 Smoke all the pot you want, but that doesn't mean I have to hire you. The negative correlation between pot use and work ethic has been well established. Even if you get the right to light up doesn't mean you'll be free of the consequences.

Posted by: MM at January 07, 2014 01:09 PM (UiQuB)

143 @91 It's the Fisher Price, My First Bong!

Posted by: Minnfidel at January 07, 2014 01:09 PM (FciyD)

144 What happens if Mary smoke The Pot and turns homonormative?

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 07, 2014 01:09 PM (oFCZn)

145 Hopheads should be allowed to opt out of Obamacare for exactly what it costs to sustain the habit.

No Health For Weed!

Posted by: Fritz at January 07, 2014 01:09 PM (TKFmG)

146 Bill O'Reilly  would have been the perfect "Dean of Discipline" at my old Catholic, all-boy high school.

Posted by: JoeyBagels at January 07, 2014 01:10 PM (simoH)

147 This is one of the (many) areas that just make people stupid. Well, those that aren't already obviously stupid. I can dislike drooling hemp-for-President potheads and drooling table-pounding hydrocephalics like BOR equally. But the core principle that pushes me over to one side (not in behavior but in policy) is that the government that ass-rapes that guy over there can be used to ass-rape you. There is a certain amount of brutality that is inherent in any civilization, but you have to fight constantly to keep it to a minimum. People forget that very easily. Or they cheer it on only to discover they're next on the list. And yes I buy into restrictions like intoxication standards despite my libertarianishness.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith[/i] [/b] [/s] [/u] at January 07, 2014 01:10 PM (qyfb5)

148 Smoke all the pot you want, but that doesn't mean I have to hire you. The negative correlation between pot use and work ethic has been well established. Even if you get the right to light up doesn't mean you'll be free of the consequences. Posted by: MM at January 07, 2014 05:09 PM (UiQuB) Well established by whome? I would love to see that study.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 01:10 PM (XIxXP)

149 A little mood music? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hghUdXKykM

Posted by: Psychedelicat at January 07, 2014 01:10 PM (XvHmy)

150 FUCK IT WE'LL SMOKE IT LIVE!

Posted by: Bill O'Reilly at January 07, 2014 01:11 PM (oFCZn)

151 you're embracing the nanny state faster than I'm willing to. This is how everyone argues for nannying -- "At some point, your personal choices will cost me some trivial amount of dollars, or impinge on me in some slight way, so I get to use the law to coerce you to live otherwise than you'd like." This argument is infinitely strechable and infinitely pernicious. Yes, under the left's theory that we all live in a "Commune" answerable to each other, this makes sense --we're all responsible for each other and therefore we all have the right to boss each other around. But I reject that theory. There must be some basic minimum level of freedom we each have or else this country is... well, it's America 2014. The fact that this country is shit right now should not cause us to argue to make it shittier. We should be fighting to make it better and freer, not worse and less free. Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:06 PM (/FnUH) ******* Where do you limit that argument? To me the scary aspect of pot is the prolonged paranoia--long after pot is stopped-- experienced by the people I know honest enough to talk about it.

Posted by: Daley Chicago- LBJ Texas at January 07, 2014 01:11 PM (RJMhd)

152 While I understand the argument that pot should be legalized due to outrageous costs and efforts associate with the *War on Drugs*, at what point does that effort become too costly when it comes to more illicit drugs? I DO believe that weed is a gateway drug and I DO believe that there are a lot of people who do not smoke it now because they are law-abiding citizens, but will try it if it is legalized. That said... I don't think pot is any more dangerous than alcohol and Everclear remains legal. I feel pretty comfortable in forecasting a drop in worker productivity should it be made legal.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 07, 2014 01:11 PM (DmNpO)

153 125 When was O'Reilly ever one of our own? He's been an Obama salad tosser since jump street, as evidenced by his root tooting interviews with him. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Pipeholder at January 07, 2014 05:07 PM (VTeUD)

So I'm not the only one who thinks the best way to deal with him is a long, silent stare, that extends into the 20 second, uncomfy range, eye contact the whole time, and then you just /dropmic and walk out?

Posted by: tangonine at January 07, 2014 01:11 PM (x3YFz)

154 Pot is dangerous because of it's innocuous nature. Smoke 40 bong rips in one sitting and suffer through a scratchy throat the following day, try that with alcohol and you'll be suffering the consequences of that decision for many hours.

That said, legalize pot.


Posted by: 13times at January 07, 2014 01:11 PM (fGPLK)

155 What objective evidence is allowable to ban anything? What counts as a "legitimate" reason to ban cocaine or heroin or meth? I'm honestly curious.. In an ideal world there's some costs benefit analysis that lets us compare drugs and foods and chemical compounds. I don't see anybody proposing anything remotely like an objective framework for analyzing these issues. It's cool to be pro-pot now so pot gets legalized but heroin is still on the outs and Sudafed still requires a prescription.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 07, 2014 01:11 PM (ZPrif)

156 Mary K's baby daddy is a leftist so the child is going to have bigger problems than pot.

Posted by: Kreplach at January 07, 2014 01:11 PM (u5ozF)

157 OReilly is already stupid.

Posted by: MoronNormative Daybrother at January 07, 2014 05:03 PM (fSeG6)

It took 92 comments before someone noticed that O'Reilly is a fucking retard?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 07, 2014 01:11 PM (QFxY5)

158 In my high school there were basically two groups, stoners and jocks. As it was a very small school there were some overlap in that some of the stoners played sports until there grades declined. Almost every one of the stoners went nowhere after high school, most of the jocks went on to productive lives.

Posted by: NvDude at January 07, 2014 01:11 PM (sV3Dv)

159 Ok, please explain why pot should *not* be treated like cigarettes. Why should he do that? HeÂ’s currently arguing that it should be treated like cigarettes. That is, that you shouldnÂ’t go to jail just for buying and possessing it.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 07, 2014 01:11 PM (QF8uk)

160 >>Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 05:08 PM (DqlhY) <<

Look at the statistics. You are not typical of that population.

Maybe you like the occasional crack toot and can handle it.

A bit of Meth every now and then.

Where does this argument end? What are the limits?

Posted by: Marcus at January 07, 2014 01:11 PM (GGCsk)

161 >>>Ok, please explain why pot should *not* be treated like cigarettes. I'm beside myself at this nonsense. YOU CAN BUY CIGARETTES FROM ANY 7-ELEVEN OR DRUG STORE OR ANYWHERE.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 01:11 PM (/FnUH)

162

The difference between pot and alcohol?  Most people have a beer  or high-ball  at the end of the day with no noticable mental changes. 

 

Pot smokers smoke to get stoned.  No exceptions.

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2014 01:12 PM (rJc6l)

163 >>So clearly, I should be jailed, right? Yes, but just for posting at the Federalist.

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 07, 2014 01:12 PM (SUKHu)

164 It seems a better strategy, less offensive to everyone, is to push for people fucking with other people less.

As @89 said, if I don't have to pay for your mistakes, I'll leave you alone.  This is also the thinking behind the nannying about smoking, sodas, and eggs.  It's why government should have no role in my health care.  If you request it, then you have to live with what comes with it.  I'm just protecting my involuntary investment.  I'd be willing to bet there's a high overlap between weed smokers and government dependency.

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 01:12 PM (6TB1Z)

165 156, why do so many attractive conservative women date leftist men?

Posted by: JoeyBagels at January 07, 2014 01:13 PM (simoH)

166 "For Bill O'Reilly, however, the matter is quite simple: If you are not in favor of a harsh, zero-tolerance War on Drugs to eliminate The Pot (and how's that working, by the way?), then it you must be okay with babies toking on bongs." Anyone who uses the fallacy of the excluded middle when they know better should be booted in the *ss. I literally mean one swift kick to the keister, every time they do it, until they stop.

Posted by: Rick C at January 07, 2014 01:13 PM (A9FNw)

167 Billy O'Shamrock is a lot like a piece of shit...there is no clean side.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 01:13 PM (TE35l)

168 The next Fuck With Normal issue: legalizing the hoo-as.

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 01:13 PM (J5lvw)

169 Cannabis is a dangerous substance. It always has been, it always will be. No amount of tax revenue from legalization is going to pay for the idiot potheads who end up as wards of the state. If we lived in a society where we all had to live with the consequences of our actions, it would be different, but we don't. Pot legalization will lead to MORE statism, not less. Why? Because there are all sorts of consequences. Toddlers "enjoying" second-hand smoke and those yummy brownies, listless people who can't hold down a job, traffic accidents from drivers who have a very slow reaction time and possibly homocidal psychotic breaks a la Cho, Holmes, Laughner and Tsarnaev. Yep, all four of them were *heavy* pot users. It seems a better strategy, less offensive to everyone, is to push for people fucking with other people less. Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:03 PM (/FnUH) It's putting the legalization cart before the welfare horse.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2014 01:13 PM (T0NGe)

170 >>Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 05:08 PM (DqlhY) <<

And punishment by the criminal justice system is almost entirely a  different topic.

Posted by: Marcus at January 07, 2014 01:13 PM (GGCsk)

171 165 156, why do so many attractive conservative women date leftist men? "Jungle Fever"?

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 07, 2014 01:13 PM (0FSuD)

172
But I reject that theory. There must be some basic minimum level of freedom we each have or else this country is... well, it's America 2014.


The fact that this country is shit right now should not cause us to argue to make it shittier. We should be fighting to make it better and freer, not worse and less free.
***
You could make a strong argument that one way to stop left wing busy-bodyism is to turn the targets on things the left likes.

Though in this case I don't think it would be a good idea.

OTOH, pushing more aggressively for drug testing now for federal hands out makes a lot of sense, but I believe the imperial judiciary has decided you can't do that for some reason...

Posted by: 18-1 at January 07, 2014 01:14 PM (P3U0f)

173 So why not just legalize everything?

Tell you what, come spend a weekend with me, I'll take you down into Meth Country and you can see the end result of that.

Who's arguing in favor of legalizing meth?

Meth is a very addictive drug that can kill you.  Pot isn't physically addictive and it's almost impossible to OD on it.

That's a pretty easily defined line.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2014 01:14 PM (SY2Kh)

174 Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 05:08 PM (DqlhY) I lived in San Francisco in the late 60's. I did my share of pot, but nothing stronger. I think I kept most my brain cells, but unlike alcohol, it is used to get high. Yes a lot of people use alcohol to get high, but that isn't the sole purpose.... I don't care as long as pot users aren't driving or smoking near me. Treat it like cigarettes , but make sure people aren't out driving, or operating equipment while imbibing...

Posted by: hello, it's me also a creep-assed cracka.. at January 07, 2014 01:14 PM (9+ccr)

175 Pot smokers smoke to get stoned. No exceptions. Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2014 05:12 PM (rJc6l) Pot works just like alcohol. There are different levels of stoned. The more you smoke, the more stoned you get. It's all about moderation. Some can do it and some can't.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 01:14 PM (XIxXP)

176

117 -

 

Reject it all you want, Ace, reality is staring you in the face.  You  are ALREADY  paying for  dope heads to toke at their leisure.

 

Who do you think all the people collecting disability checks are?  People who hurt their backs building roads and bridges?

 

Sorry, no.  The  potheads are already soaking you.  Once you make it legal, it will be easier and more out in the open.

 

Screw that.  I didn't create the  nanny state, but I refuse to live in  a version where they get to live in both ends of it: free to do as they please, and free to make me pay for it. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 07, 2014 01:14 PM (TOk1P)

177 Plus-- Matt Welch. Libertarianism isn't about capitalism anymore it's been hijacked by pot. I don't think Ayn Rand wrote too many pot stories but then maybe once she started the reefer she quit writing... hell upside!

Posted by: Daley Chicago- LBJ Texas at January 07, 2014 01:14 PM (RJMhd)

178 We should be fighting to make it better and freer, not worse and less free.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:06 PM (/FnUH)

You argument is internally inconsistent.

How can I be free when I am responsible for the repercussions of your actions?

Legalize all drugs...just don't hold me responsible for the bill.

Otherwise I have every right to limit your access to substances that will make you do stupid shit and cost me money.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 07, 2014 01:14 PM (QFxY5)

179 IIRC John Elway bought a chain of pizza delivery places in Co last year. No, really. That's the kind of reaction that made him great.

Posted by: MoronNormative Daybrother at January 07, 2014 01:14 PM (Gp+Ph)

180 158 In my high school there were basically two groups, stoners and jocks.

What happened to the sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, and dickheads?

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 01:14 PM (6TB1Z)

181

I prefer to     make it a misdemeanor punishable by fine.  Legalize it if you want, as long as it is an aggravating factor in automobile accidents, robberies, and burglaries, and employers can still fire you if you test positive.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 07, 2014 01:15 PM (AskuI)

182 I'm conflicted. I remember high school friends that used pot as a gateway. Some survived, a couple did not. I also had nerd friends that used and thrived in life; a cardiac surgeon, the head of a major non-profit, a family physician. But freedom is good.

Posted by: Lace Wigs [/i] at January 07, 2014 01:15 PM (RqqAn)

183 What counts as a "legitimate" reason to ban cocaine or heroin or meth? Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 07, 2014 05:11 PM (ZPrif) The fact that experience has shown us that Opium can destroy a nation. http://books.google.com/books/about/Drugging_a_nation.html?id=HTWE42XNXmIC

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 01:15 PM (bb5+k)

184 Even if pot were legal in Alabama, I guarantee that my employer's policy on it's use would not.  And I would support their right to do that.

Posted by: toby928© at January 07, 2014 01:15 PM (QupBk)

185 Pot legalization will lead to MORE statism, not less *** With this I agree completely. There will be 1000 additional laws written to cover all the rules.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 07, 2014 01:15 PM (DmNpO)

186 >>> Where do you limit that argument? To me the scary aspect of pot is the prolonged paranoia--long after pot is stopped-- experienced by the people I know honest enough to talk about it. .. I don't know where I'd limit it. I'm in favor of experimental liberalization of a great many things. I don't think we should fear freedom as much as we do. So we'll see where I'd limit it. For now I'm in favor of maximum freedom. We'll see where things really break down (if they do). As for the bad effects of pot: yes, and alcohol has a lot of bad effects too. A lot more people are alcohol addicts than drug addicts, you know. All drugs are bad. I don't like any of them (except nicotine, which i am trying to requit). That doesn't mean we should throw people in jail for the Crime of Using a Drug I Don't Personally Enjoy. Which is what this is, which is what this always has been. Alcohol got prohibited due to teetotalers (among them some anti-Catholic folk) who didn't like it. Pot gets prohibited by people who say "I dig cigarettes and booze, but this Demon Weed is a step too far." We are forever dreaming up new was to fuck with each other, for almost no reason at all, except to say that our Tribe has won this match.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 01:15 PM (/FnUH)

187 167 Billy O'Shamrock is a lot like a piece of shit...there is no clean side.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 05:13 PM (TE35l)

As narcissists go, he's got second place locked up.

Posted by: tangonine at January 07, 2014 01:15 PM (x3YFz)

188 Look at the statistics. You are not typical of that population. Maybe you like the occasional crack toot and can handle it. A bit of Meth every now and then. Where does this argument end? What are the limits? Posted by: Marcus at January 07, 2014 05:11 PM (GGCsk) Not what I asked. Prison for CAC or not. If the answer is "no because you're different", that's not the law. The law is the law. So either it is a bad law that should be changed, or off to prison I should go. There is NO reason I should be given a pass. After all, it's DEADLY-SERIOUS-EVIL, right?

Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 01:15 PM (DqlhY)

189 Look I smoked when I was younger ( no matter what the Navy may think) but legalizing pot is gonna cause a whole host of problems. It stays in your body much longer than booze. How long after you smoke it can you drive? Work? The Military? If your gonna legalize it do it right not haphazard like it is being done

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2014 01:15 PM (t3UFN)

190 No, pot doesn't work just like alcohol. They are totally different chemicals that interact with human physiology in totally different ways.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 07, 2014 01:16 PM (ZPrif)

191 why do so many attractive conservative women date leftist men?

Posted by: JoeyBagels at January 07, 2014 05:13 PM (simoH)

Because most conservative men are just too well endowed for them.

Posted by: Typical piggish Moron at January 07, 2014 01:16 PM (QFxY5)

192 How can I be free when I am responsible for the repercussions of your actions? Legalize all drugs...just don't hold me responsible for the bill. Otherwise I have every right to limit your access to substances that will make you do stupid shit and cost me money. Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 07, 2014 05:14 PM (QFxY5) You and I agree on this. Had to be something I guess.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 01:16 PM (bb5+k)

193 Banning any drug has serious consequences to the criminal justice system. It is not free to imprison people under the crack mandatory minimums. I would mandatory minimum child sex abuse or voter fraud befor having ten crack rocks three times, or whatever.

Posted by: Beagle at January 07, 2014 01:16 PM (sOtz/)

194 Stoner walks into a bar.............. Forgot why he was there ........... Turned around and left.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at January 07, 2014 01:16 PM (32Ze2)

195 Look at the statistics. You are not typical of that population. Actually, he is. Funny aside, you know who ALWAYS has weed on them when they get in my boat for a day of fishing? Retired cops. Every last one of them. Makes me laugh.

Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 01:16 PM (cQ2Q9)

196 It was only a matter of time before The Breakfast Club made its way in here. and now we wait on the arrival of Cheech..

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 01:16 PM (J5lvw)

197 We are forever dreaming up new was to fuck with each other, for almost no reason at all, except to say that our Tribe has won this match. Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:15 PM (/FnUH) Preach it my brother.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 01:16 PM (XIxXP)

198 104 Keep in mind O'reilly's age and generation. He was raised on a steady diet of Refer Madnessesque propaganda. And as we all know, propaganda is effective. Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 05:05 PM (XIxXP) I don't want to apologize for O'Reilly (dear God, I hate that man), but he's 64. He's smack dab in the middle of the baby boomer toker generation. I'm quite sure he wasn't living on a clean-living Baptist commune either. His age just has to do with the fact that he's 64 and as an old dude, he's probably glad that he got out of the sixties without hanging around with his three friends and a dog, solving "mysteries" and always having the munchies.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2014 01:16 PM (T0NGe)

199 I think the real problem is that the right and left have ALWAYS had their pet nanny state causes. We are delusional if we think the right is some bastion of individual freedom. And the comments on here are a pretty good example of that.

Posted by: Eton Cox at January 07, 2014 01:16 PM (q177U)

200

173 -

 

Pot is addictive, Hollowhead.  People who have been telling you different are lying to you. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 07, 2014 01:17 PM (TOk1P)

201 I don't believe all of the rosy arguments made by the legalizers. The cartels will NOT disappear--- they'll just switch to harder stuff, like the Mafia did after Prohibition. The states will NOT make money or, at best, will waste any gains. The use of marijuana WILL go up, especially among minors. Still, I've always been okay with decriminalizing the stuff. It's not a big deal to me and I think the offense against liberty is real enough.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at January 07, 2014 01:17 PM (dfYL9)

202 Why should he do that? HeÂ’s currently arguing that it should be treated like cigarettes. That is, that you shouldnÂ’t go to jail just for buying and possessing it.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 07, 2014 05:11 PM (QF8uk)


That's not remotely what he (or more specifically, the pro-pot position) is arguing.




When I was in community college, there were, and still are, heavy restrictions on smoking, but at the same time, I saw my peers smoking pot wherever. I am quite doubtful that the pro-pot people would like to have the restrictions that smokers have.




That's where my "fair's fair" comes in. Also, full disclosure: I don't smoke.

Posted by: [/i]KG at January 07, 2014 01:17 PM (p7BzH)

203 "A bit of Meth every now and then. Where does this argument end? What are the limits?" for me anyway, it comes down to "maybe the purpose of your life was to serve as a warning for others." I'd get rid of meth by allowing PhRMA to come up with something better that can be sold over the counter. beat it with a better product, not prohibition.

Posted by: DCPensFan at January 07, 2014 01:17 PM (ma/2m)

204 This is typical O'Reilly. Arrogant SOB who always thinks he's right. And, as soon as he is being disproved (which is often), he talks over the guest, shouts, and stops the intelligent, coherent messaging with attacks. I'm with MKH. In such a short time, she made a lot of sense and was communicating, clearly, her position. I will never understand why the bullying of O'Reilly gets such high ratings.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 07, 2014 01:18 PM (IXrOn)

205 Wait, you people sound like you don't believe O'R is "looking out for the folks"

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 07, 2014 01:18 PM (0FSuD)

206 Let's see how things go in Colorado before we decide, laboratories of the states and all that.

Posted by: toby928© at January 07, 2014 01:18 PM (QupBk)

207 Prison for CAC or not.

Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 05:15 PM (DqlhY)

Prison? Damned straight!

Get your friends over at The Federalist to bail you out.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 07, 2014 01:18 PM (QFxY5)

208 Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 05:08 PM (DqlhY) Fair enough CAC. But you'll pardon me if I still don't care much for stoners. In fact, my cousin died not to far from you after running out on the highway when she and her friends got high as a kite. While I understand that criminalization may or may not do much, you've got a huge hurdle to overcome to convince me to want to do much to help you. Hell it took me 3 years not to want to involve tanks in the War on Drugs.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 07, 2014 01:18 PM (GaqMa)

209 161 >>>Ok, please explain why pot should *not* be treated like cigarettes. I'm beside myself at this nonsense. YOU CAN BUY CIGARETTES FROM ANY 7-ELEVEN OR DRUG STORE OR ANYWHERE. Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:11 PM (/FnUH) ******** But you can't by the ciggies with food stamps--right? Did you see that article--at the dailypaul.com? Supposedly in Colorado according to them you can buy pot at the pot store with food stamps. Not sure how the hell that works, but-- I think I'm going to believe a Libertarian site about that.

Posted by: Daley Chicago- LBJ Texas at January 07, 2014 01:18 PM (RJMhd)

210 I'm beside myself at this nonsense. YOU CAN BUY CIGARETTES FROM ANY 7-ELEVEN OR DRUG STORE OR ANYWHERE.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:11 PM (/FnUH)


THAT DOESN"T ANSWER THE QUESTION.




lol, really Ace. I'm talking about when it's legal, not what it is right now. Stop being disingenuous.

Posted by: [/i]KG at January 07, 2014 01:18 PM (p7BzH)

211 Legalize all drugs...just don't hold me responsible for the bill. That's the endgame. Kill or injure someone under the influence, Bye Bye. Burn your gizzard out? Here's your Oxy, your gonna die.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 01:19 PM (XIxXP)

212 So are Doritos going to come out with special marketing for pot smokers?

Posted by: Northernlurker at January 07, 2014 01:19 PM (Xmw9g)

213 Bill O'Reilly is a bloviating wannabe. His stupid oversimplifications of complex arguments are written in red neon across his stupid red, pulsing,sweating face.

He can not hold a conversation of greater than 5 seconds with anyone but himself and his self styled heroic defenses of populist crap should be bronzed and placed in a Museum for Arrogant Blowhards Who Contribute Nothing as a warning to all.

So, yeah.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 01:19 PM (5ikDv)

214 Meanwhile, one     is limited in dosage in the purchase of sudafed, and it must be purchased from a pharmacist and signed for.   Interesting comparison.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 07, 2014 01:19 PM (AskuI)

215 We are forever dreaming up new was to fuck with each other, for almost no reason at all, except to say that our Tribe has won this match.

Nope, that's not it.  I have no interest in the life arc of stoners, as long as they are transparent to my wallet.  They aren't.

It was only a matter of time before The Breakfast Club made its way in here.

Try again.

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 01:19 PM (6TB1Z)

216 CAC you should go to prison for all those ludicrous posts you made last year such as "Romney Only Trailing By 8 in Michigan, Up From -15!!" Clearly you were high. Very high.

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 01:19 PM (J5lvw)

217 Actually, he is. Funny aside, you know who ALWAYS has weed on them when they get in my boat for a day of fishing? Retired cops. Every last one of them. Makes me laugh. Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 05:16 PM (cQ2Q9) Indeed. There are millions like me. So either we all go to the butt-rape motel, or perhaps this is a shit law.

Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 01:19 PM (DqlhY)

218 (except nicotine, which i am trying to requit). How's that going?

Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 01:19 PM (cQ2Q9)

219 Was watching a bit of this last night. My God, is O'Reilly obtuse!

This rock & roll music is corrupting our youth! And by God, Something Must Be Done!!!!!

These young people have strange habits and customs that I don't approve of, no sirree. With their texting and their internets.

Posted by: tsj017 at January 07, 2014 01:20 PM (4YUWF)

220 When I was in 6th grade (1970/71), my Social Studies teacher predicted that marijuana would be legalized within three years. Ironically, his name was Mr. Weed.

Posted by: Bill R. at January 07, 2014 01:20 PM (QnRSM)

221 O'Reilly is full of himself.

One of his biggest problems is that once he decides his position on any subject - usually done within seconds, apparently - he will not brook any dissent, and becomes condescending and nastily dismissive to opposing views.

I'm all for "decriminalization" too, but it needs to be done the right way.  Currently marijuana is a Schedule I Controlled Substance.  That's federal law, states can't just "nullify" those they dislike.  We fought a whole about this (there was something about us not paying our help Minimum Wage, too, or something).

The proper way to address it is to have CONGRESS remove it from the list.  THEN the states can act according to their own best judgments.  But surely we all recognize that pot doesn't belong in the same category as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine.

Posted by: Adjoran at January 07, 2014 01:20 PM (473jB)

222 Conservatives never used to use "nanny state" to refer to moral questions. The eff man trendy libertarianism is not teh future

Posted by: blue.dot at January 07, 2014 01:20 PM (pAH14)

223 I don't know where I'd limit it. I'm in favor of experimental liberalization of a great many things. I don't think we should fear freedom as much as we do. So we'll see where I'd limit it.

For now I'm in favor of maximum freedom. We'll see where things really break down (if they do).



Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:15 PM (/FnUH)

God, Ace, if you were a chick I'd stalk you.

Yes x 1.67x10^8 

I believe that every person should be free to succeed or en fuego themselves.  Free.

Free to be as stupid or brilliant as you want.

Posted by: tangonine at January 07, 2014 01:20 PM (x3YFz)

224 Prison for CAC or not.

Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 05:15 PM (DqlhY)

Oh...and by the way...specious argument.

If every drug user were responsible then there wouldn't be any problems to cite as evidence against decriminalizing drugs!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 07, 2014 01:20 PM (QFxY5)

225 158 pep
Like I said it was a small high school only 35 in my graduating class and that was considered a large class lol. We had one black family in the town and a pretty even mix of whites to Hispanics. It was the late 70's early 80's and there was no gang problems yet. 

Posted by: NvDude at January 07, 2014 01:20 PM (sV3Dv)

226 CAC jailed? Hell, no, but next meet up let's make sure he's invited!

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 07, 2014 01:20 PM (0FSuD)

227 Hopefully primo's will also be legalized, for the children.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 07, 2014 01:20 PM (DpEwG)

228 Bill O. is deteriorating into a leftist, or at least to using leftoid "debate" techniques.

Posted by: logprof: Go Seminoles! at January 07, 2014 01:20 PM (X3GkB)

229 185 Pot legalization will lead to MORE statism, not less *** With this I agree completely. There will be 1000 additional laws written to cover all the rules. Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 07, 2014 05:15 PM (DmNpO) I have long argued a different path to statism. China legalized opium because the British forced them to do so. By the end of the 19th century, 50% of adult males were addicted to opium. (according to the Drug Library website.) What followed was a period of inherent weakness in this nation to the extent that their much smaller neighbor could conquer them. In the subsequent chaos, a dictator was exactly what the people wanted. Someone to restore order. Well they got one. Mao Tse Tung. I think he killed something like 80 million people.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 01:21 PM (bb5+k)

230 Last night was when Bill O crossed the line and became Ed Anger.

Posted by: tsj017 at January 07, 2014 01:21 PM (4YUWF)

231 Pot is addictive

Is it?  Or is it just attractive?  I don't think it comes with any withdrawals.

Posted by: toby928© at January 07, 2014 01:21 PM (QupBk)

232 CAC you should go to prison for all those ludicrous posts you made last year such as "Romney Only Trailing By 8 in Michigan, Up From -15!!" Clearly you were high. Very high. Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 05:19 PM (J5lvw) Nope. I was broke thanks to the wedding in 2012, so no money for any pot for nearly the entire year. But my maps were criminally large.

Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 01:21 PM (DqlhY)

233 I say women should be able to go topless in public just like a man.   I don't need no nanny state to imprison a woman's right to do the same thing a man can do.   Release those puppies!!!

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 01:21 PM (m2CN7)

234 Wait, you people sound like you don't believe O'R is

"looking out for the folks" Posted by: Nip Sip

Next thing you know, you'll be telling me I'm NOT in a no-spin zone. F that noise.

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 01:22 PM (6TB1Z)

235 Drug legalization or decriminalization is, just like the Iraq war, a surrender to zeitgeist and political fashion that most conservatives will come to regret.

Posted by: The Awkward-Turtle at January 07, 2014 01:22 PM (pdZa0)

236 Posted by: blue.dot STFU, dunce.

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 01:22 PM (J5lvw)

237 If you oppose this enormous new government program, you must not want to use public roads! Stay off them!

Posted by: Liberal Logic 101 at January 07, 2014 01:22 PM (X3GkB)

238 >>>>Freedom is much less likely to be damaging than paternalism in a nanny state.>>>>

Outlawing intoxicating substances isn't "paternalism," nor does outlawing intoxicating substances make a country a "nanny state."

Having lived all of my young adulthood in Europe, I can tell you that legalized pot is anathema to all the values conservatives claim to hold.

The Dutch just had to completely overhaul their welfare system because too many able-bodied potheads were draining the state coffers.

Someday people have to accept that regular pot use changes your behavior. It's not a harmless herb that just makes you mellow. We can barely handle booze in the country, and now we want to add an intoxicant that saps you of initiative and makes you amoral?

Carl Sagan was probably one of the most famous mainstream potheads. Ever read about his personal life? It correlates perfectly with what I've observed about pot users. He was amoral, uncaring, arrogant, rigid, and unreachable. Does heavy pot use cause those characteristics, or are those people draw to pot?

Don't know. But it's not "paternalistic" to outlaw intoxicants. Pot users always jabber about how responsible they are. I've yet to meet one who didn't have massive emotional problems, which is why they're self-medicating in the first place.

The answer is decriminalization, not legalization. But that's too hard. It's easier to toss around all-or-nothing bumper-sticker slogans.

Posted by: Tacky Adhesive at January 07, 2014 01:22 PM (+yhVL)

239 "Maximum freedom" What is this, dorm room philosophy

Posted by: blue.dot at January 07, 2014 01:22 PM (pAH14)

240 Well, I must cook dinner for my family, Spaghetti. Now, where is my special oregano.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 01:22 PM (XIxXP)

241 Eh, I could care less about O'Reiley. More interesting was the first argument MKH and JW used. MKJ: Liberty is good. JW: Pot criminilization is RACISM!

Posted by: I hate coming up with names at January 07, 2014 01:22 PM (hk0ja)

242
In the subsequent chaos, a dictator was exactly what the people wanted. Someone to restore order. Well they got one. Mao Tse Tung.
___
Hey folks, are you ready for Hillary? (presuming Barky leaves).

Posted by: The Future at January 07, 2014 01:22 PM (P3U0f)

243 Pot is no more addictive than pussy.

Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 01:22 PM (cQ2Q9)

244 Pot is addictive

Is it? Or is it just attractive? I don't think it comes with any withdrawals.

Posted by: toby928© at January 07, 2014 05:21 PM (QupBk)

 

It is pyschologically very addictive. 

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 01:22 PM (m2CN7)

245 I don't have a problem with legalization. If someone wants to kill their brain cells so be it....it is not permanent and eventually they will figure that they want more out of life than smoking a noxious weed. Posted by: Budahmon at January 07, 2014 04:58 PM (bBSSG)And then they vote...

Posted by: Axeman at January 07, 2014 01:22 PM (cAr2x)

246 201 Margarita DeVille at January 07, 2014 05:17 PM (dfYL9)

I'll go a step further....subsidize it, ship it right to the poor's door giving the USPS something to do...

Whoever just argued against leaglizing meth and cocaine is being a bit of a prude...

if Hollywood celebs can handle it why can't joe six-pack....?

Someone upthread mentioned prostitution...why not?

Someone else mentioned that legalizing pot like it was the MOST important liberty issue was shortsighted...

and yeah that is true but now that the Pro-Pot Libertarians got their way on pot watch them forget about actual enumerated rights that are under assault...

I understand that is a side effect of their kick.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 01:22 PM (TE35l)

247 Maybe we should all Tolerate some things we don't actually approve of

after two hundred comments, perhaps it has already been said.
Perhaps I should read the comments first, and by that time there will be four hundred comments.

Nah, I'm just going to ask the question, 'where does it end', this tolerance of things we don't like.
We should tolerate Obamacare because so many people say they want it.
We should tolerate tax cheats because everyone cheats on their taxes.
We should tolerate high speed driving on the freeway because everyone has the urge to just floor it once in a while.
We should tolerate . . . . .

If we are going to 'tolerate' behavior we don't approve of, why have any laws at all? If we have to 'tolerate' law breaking, then we really don't have a nation of law we have a nation of 'do whatever you want and make a fuss about it if you can't get away with it'.

Posted by: John Native at January 07, 2014 01:23 PM (apx2F)

248 I have long argued a different path to statism. China legalized opium because the British forced them to do so. By the end of the 19th century, 50% of adult males were addicted to opium. (according to the Drug Library website.) What followed was a period of inherent weakness in this nation to the extent that their much smaller neighbor could conquer them. In the subsequent chaos, a dictator was exactly what the people wanted. Someone to restore order. Well they got one. Mao Tse Tung. I think he killed something like 80 million people. *** Great, and I'll be one of the sober ones writing in agony at the sight of it all.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 07, 2014 01:23 PM (DmNpO)

249 Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:15 PM (/FnUH) Again ace, Open invitation to drive though Meth country if you'd like. No legalization until we have our limiting principle. Until then this fence stays up (even if it's technically wrong.)

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 07, 2014 01:23 PM (GaqMa)

250 The real problem is all the acid that was taken by the Marxists of the 60s. That's what made them think that since what I breathe out -they breathe in means that they can run every aspect of my life. This ain't Disneyland.

Posted by: Daybrother at January 07, 2014 01:23 PM (ioWtj)

251 206 Let's see how things go in Colorado before we decide, laboratories of the states and all that. Posted by: toby928© at January 07, 2014 05:18 PM (QupBk) Smartest thing i've seen so far in this thread.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 01:23 PM (bb5+k)

252 236 you're high

Posted by: blue.dot at January 07, 2014 01:23 PM (pAH14)

253 You can't get addicted to weed!

Posted by: Ricky at January 07, 2014 01:23 PM (X3GkB)

254 Conservatives never used to use "nanny state" to refer to moral questions.

STFU, dunce.

Posted by: toby928© calls honors at January 07, 2014 01:23 PM (QupBk)

255 ? I DO believe that weed is a gateway drug and I DO believe that there are a lot of people who do not smoke it now because they are law-abiding citizens, but will try it if it is legalized.

I've little doubt more people will try it now that it's legal.

With regards to being a 'gateway drug' I also believe there's some truth to that, but in part because it's illegal.

Where it's illegal, if you want to buy some pot it means a visit to a drug dealer- a criminal.  It's not a stretch to suggest that someone who deals in one illicit drug deals in others as well.  And since you're already buying one drug, why not another?

Where it's legal, you buy from a store that does not also sell coke, meth, or whatever.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2014 01:24 PM (SY2Kh)

256 So, is Ace going to start the AoSHQ Buyers Club for cut rate pot? Why pay what the feds are going to charge plus all the taxes? Get High? Get Aced!

Posted by: Plaintiff Pug at January 07, 2014 01:24 PM (Qev5V)

257 writhing

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 07, 2014 01:24 PM (DmNpO)

258 Someone upthread mentioned prostitution...why not? I mentioned hoo-as.

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 01:24 PM (J5lvw)

259 "That doesn't mean we should throw people in jail for the Crime of Using a Drug I Don't Personally Enjoy. Which is what this is, which is what this always has been." No, that's simply false and you are doing what you accuse others of doing, arguing in bad faith, not even allowing the possibility that others have a legitimate opinion. People honestly believe that pot causes much more harm than good. Much more harm than you believe it causes. They aren't simply uptight prudes. They have a different cost-benefit analysis than you. And alcohol prohibition wasn't just an attempt by uptight prudes afraid of jazz, liquor, and sex to stop people from having fun. Still was a bad idea. Demeaning and mocking those you disagree with is an effective way to win an argument in the modern age. Not a very admirable way, but effective.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 07, 2014 01:24 PM (ZPrif)

260 I don't think it comes with any withdrawals. Posted by: toby928© at January 07, 2014 05:21 PM (QupBk) Munchies- fat overweight- sleeps all day--heart attack

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2014 01:24 PM (t3UFN)

261 Tacky Adhesive, Please see my post earlier today which describes the dishonest tactic of denying you're doing what you're obviously doing. Obviously you are in favor of a paternalistic regime. Half of your points are about protecting people from their own choices. That IS paternalism, of course. You're just insisting we call it something else when you do it, because to you it is a pleasing, nice paternalism.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 01:24 PM (/FnUH)

262 I don't know where I'd limit it. I'm in favor of experimental liberalization of a great many things. I don't think we should fear freedom as much as we do. So we'll see where I'd limit it. For now I'm in favor of maximum freedom. We'll see where things really break down (if they do). ******* Okay got ya. I'm just really against it because my brother started on pot, graduated to ecstasy-- ended up paranoid, hyper critical of people--pot made him notice the damnedest small things-- and now he goes to a shrink that gives him the real pharmaceuticals. Plus he's an asshole. Mega. Every person I know well--that has done pot quit because of the paranoia. That scared them straight--for my brother it was too late. It's possible he was predisposed to be an asshole and pot let him BLOOM--so to speak.

Posted by: Daley Chicago- LBJ Texas at January 07, 2014 01:24 PM (RJMhd)

263 If you think the LIVs are stupid now, wait until     the democrats tell them that      free      pot is a right.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 07, 2014 01:25 PM (AskuI)

264

231 -

 

I wouldn't  define addiction as being something that leads  to withdawals or not when it is ended.  It has physiological AND psychological effects on heavy users who quit though.  Just as most substances of abuse do. 

 

Ironically, most people think heroin has the worst withdrawals symptoms.  It  doesn't.  That would generally be tobacco and alcohol. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 07, 2014 01:25 PM (TOk1P)

265 I think we should criminalize The Loofah.

"Please stop me before I Loofah again!" - Bill O'Reilly


Posted by: West at January 07, 2014 01:25 PM (1Rgee)

266 Pot isn't physically addictive and it's almost impossible to OD on it.


Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2014 05:14 PM (SY2Kh)

 

 

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

 

 

You need to go to a nearby  drug/alcohol treatment center and listen to some of the patients there.  It'll open your eyes.

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2014 01:25 PM (rJc6l)

267 It is, fundamentally, a matter of formation. State power cannot really be employed to compensate for a deficient formation. Which is to say, if one needs the Government to go around slapping the "doobies" out of one's children's mouths, something has probably gone wrong at some point in their upbringing.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 07, 2014 01:26 PM (DhGW2)

268 254 y'all know I'm right. You want to turn conservatism into retardedly ideological libertarianism and pretend that's what it's "always" been.

Posted by: blue.dot at January 07, 2014 01:26 PM (pAH14)

269 232 CAC you should go to prison for all those ludicrous posts you made last year such as "Romney Only Trailing By 8 in Michigan, Up From -15!!"

Clearly you were high. Very high.
Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 05:19 PM (J5lvw)

Nope. I was broke thanks to the wedding in 2012, so no money for any pot for nearly the entire year.

But my maps were criminally large.

Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 05:21 PM (DqlhY)

Diablo is on station.  3 hour orbit.  Call for support.  You hound it, we'll pound it.

Posted by: tangonine at January 07, 2014 01:26 PM (x3YFz)

270 I'm okay with toddlers ripping the bong, unless it's from my stash. Game on, motherfuckers, I'll shoot you in the face like I did your mother last night!!!11!!!  Don't make a maniac out of me!

Posted by: Fritz at January 07, 2014 01:26 PM (TKFmG)

271 I only wish the war or the incadescent bulb was as effective as the war on pot.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 07, 2014 01:26 PM (IS2o0)

272 243 Pot is no more addictive than pussy. Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 05:22 PM (cQ2Q9) ***** And you quit one of those-- cold turkey. I've seen the ex-wife comments.

Posted by: Daley Chicago- LBJ Texas at January 07, 2014 01:26 PM (RJMhd)

273 I'm fine with legalizing it. I think it might be a serious mistake, but I'm not sure. But I really don't see much in the way of objective, honest arguments -- just ad hominem attacks on those who want to keep it illegal and attempts to frame the question in a way that opposing legalization is entirely illegitimate and unreasonable.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 07, 2014 01:26 PM (ZPrif)

274 Munchies- fat overweight- sleeps all day--heart attack Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2014 05:24 PM (t3UFN) What are Food Stamps?

Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 01:27 PM (cQ2Q9)

275 Who's arguing in favor of legalizing meth? Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2014 05:14 PM (SY2Kh) Charles C.W. Cooke, for one. He replied to one of my tweets. It's the standard libertarian position and the only intellectually consistent one. The problem with pot legalization is that the supporters will simply refuse to accept any negative consequences. They'll be willing to tolerate any level of statism to ameliorate those consequences in order to keep pot legal. That's the goal. As we sit here arguing about legalizing a hallucinogen, lightbulbs are still illegal. Lightbulbs. Heckuva job there, libertarians.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2014 01:27 PM (T0NGe)

276 It is pyschologically very addictive.

Because it's enjoyable.  I also found sex to be pyschologically addicting.  Indeed, I was hooked on the very first occasion.  I believe that I actually said to myself, I like this.  I like this very much.

Posted by: toby928© calls honors at January 07, 2014 01:27 PM (QupBk)

277 Stupid gringos.  You trust your government more than me?

Posted by: El Chapo Guzman at January 07, 2014 01:27 PM (wAQA5)

278 Society is paternalist duude

Posted by: blue.dot at January 07, 2014 01:27 PM (pAH14)

279 248 Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 07, 2014 05:23 PM (DmNpO)

Well you'll have an easier time preparing than people on voluntary hard mode ma'am...

the thing is we didn't get welfare reform done, or rather kepp it from being undone so there is a safety hammock...

that way of corrective impusle is denied us so do what I've done and embrace the literal suck...

we're already a Xeroxonomic economy so why not add another two or three trillion to the woodpile...?

I figure if I can get enough people to legalize enough shit they'll start self-selecting anyday now...

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 01:27 PM (TE35l)

280 Until then this fence stays up (even if it's technically wrong.) Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 07, 2014 05:23 PM (GaqMa) Meth is not weed, Coke is not weed, Heroine is not weed. Those things are very different. I've done them all cept heroine, even I wasn't that stupid.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 01:28 PM (XIxXP)

281 Munchies- fat overweight- sleeps all day--heart attack Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2014 05:24 PM (t3UFN) What are Food Stamps? Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 05:27 PM (cQ2Q9) Food Stamps and Pot: Perfect Together

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2014 01:28 PM (t3UFN)

282 Obviously you are in favor of a paternalistic regime. Half of your points are about protecting people from their own choices. That IS paternalism, of course. You're just insisting we call it something else when you do it, because to you it is a pleasing, nice paternalism.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:24 PM (/FnUH)

 

So every vice should be legal.  Is that what you are saying?

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 01:28 PM (m2CN7)

283 Legitimate question: What is the distinction between criminalizing Big Gulps, pot, and cocaine?

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 07, 2014 01:28 PM (Hx5uv)

284 So you want your DR operating on you after smoking pot?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2014 01:29 PM (t3UFN)

285

I'll give you legalization in    return for drug testing of welfare recipients.    All we need is another contingent of slackers drawing off the dole instead of pulling their weight.

 

Better yet, legalization in return for no welfare, period.  Pot is just another     self-imposed handicap to success, and we should not subsidize failure.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 07, 2014 01:29 PM (AskuI)

286 Sometimes Ace posts things so well thought out that I am in awe of his ability to comprehend complex ideas. Then he makes a post like this and I realize that occasional flashes in the pan do not equate to brilliance.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 01:29 PM (bb5+k)

287 Expecting Bill O'Reilly to show intelligence or listen to his guests is like expecting Michael Moore to admit he's a filthy hypocrite who is everything he claims to fight against.
And while, in principle, I agree that freedom is better than tyranny and people ought to be able to make up their own minds about various behaviors, every society has lines they draw at which point they say "thus and no further." For some, this line always moves toward liberty, using exactly the same arguments, and they will brook no opposition, crying 'tyranny' at every point.
Drugs are more harmful than their users admit, or often are even aware of. The damage they do is usually only realized late in life when its too late to do anything about it. I've seen what they do to people personally who were sure they could handle it. Everyone who takes drugs thinks its the other dude who should cut back or do without, but they are responsible and showing restraint. The problem is, when you're on drugs by definition your judgment is seriously damaged.
Its just a question of where you think society has to step in and when, not whether. Everyone thinks there are limits, even the super libertarian guy. And almost every single person who wants weed legalized argues in terms of freedom but really means "I wanna get high without worrying about the law or feeling guilty."
This is where I have the least patience with Libertarians, because they couch every argument in high-seeming principles and concepts of liberty but almost none of them mean a damn word of it. They just want their personal vice to be permitted and acceptable in society.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 07, 2014 01:29 PM (zfY+H)

288 Where it's illegal, if you want to buy some pot it means a visit to a drug dealer- a criminal. It's not a stretch to suggest that someone who deals in one illicit drug deals in others as well. And since you're already buying one drug, why not another? Where it's legal, you buy from a store that does not also sell coke, meth, or whatever. *** There is some logic in that argument. Yet, I would suggest that the *gateway* element to pot arises from If pot makes me feel this good, imagine how good XYZ will make me feel... I've commented here over the years about the type of home I resided in during my teens and I've seen this scenario play out repeatedly. I've never known someone who smoked pot, who then moved on to heavier drugs, who would ever have thought they'd have done so when they took their first toke.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 07, 2014 01:29 PM (DmNpO)

289 We take drugs pretty seriously at my house.

Posted by: Daybrother does Firesign Theater at January 07, 2014 01:29 PM (YbmGC)

290 Ironically, most people think heroin has the worst withdrawals symptoms. It doesn't. That would generally be tobacco and alcohol.

Quitting alcohol can kill you.  Don't take the chance I say.

Posted by: toby928© calls honors at January 07, 2014 01:30 PM (QupBk)

291 275 AmishDude at January 07, 2014 05:27 PM (T0NGe)

NDH Mary K Ham and I had a little spin about that AmishDude....

we live in a nation where pot is sorta legal and should be "freeeee mannnnn" but I can't buy a 32oz drink in NYC sometimes...

fuck it....legalize it all and let the bodies hit the floor....

if pot is the wonderdrug cure all the stoners say I'll be happy to be wrong and if not well I'll be happy to be right....

if enough kids embrace the cheech and chong lifestyle my son's sobriety is an asset.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 01:30 PM (TE35l)

292 What I DO have an issue with, however, is the clever form of administrators some pf the CO pot peddlers are coming up with. For example, pot "chewables" aka gummy bears. That's the perfect alternative to smoking for a kid, wouldn't you say? As kids, if we smoked there'd be obvious telltale signs that would be cause for parental detection. With pot gummy bears, not so much. Plus kids, like chicks, can't hold their smoke. That's what it is.

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 01:30 PM (J5lvw)

293 "Nope, that's not it. I have no interest in the life arc of stoners, as long as they are transparent to my wallet. They aren't. ... Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 05:19 PM (6TB1Z) " That argument works, if the "war on drugs" and "no knock raids" and imprisonment of all offenders is also "transparent to your wallet". Hint for you... It isn't. I'm going to be curious to see if the "legalize drugs" cost ends up less than the "war on drugs" cost for marijuana in CO. If your only interest is your wallet, wouldn't that be better?

Posted by: gekkobear at January 07, 2014 01:30 PM (HZiic)

294 Food Stamps and Pot: Perfect Together In MA, EBT cards are accepted at strip clubs. Isn't that great??

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 07, 2014 01:30 PM (IS2o0)

295 Go to Hamsterdam!

Posted by: Bunny Colvin at January 07, 2014 01:30 PM (X3GkB)

296 Food Stamps and Pot: Perfect Together Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2014 05:28 PM (t3UFN) ***** Yes!!!!

Posted by: Pot Bownie Bakers Union #66 at January 07, 2014 01:31 PM (RJMhd)

297 Bonus quatloos to anyone who can identify my movie reference in the above comment.

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 01:31 PM (J5lvw)

298 You need to go to a nearby drug/alcohol treatment center and listen to some of the patients there. It'll open your eyes. Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2014 05:25 PM (rJc6l) Make a stop at the sexual addiction centers. Maybe we should all stop screwing. There are a myriad of addictions and abuses. The same guy who wants to ban pot ignores his family while he's playing six hours of a stupid video games.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 01:31 PM (XIxXP)

299 Because it's enjoyable. I also found sex to be pyschologically addicting. Indeed, I was hooked on the very first occasion. I believe that I actually said to myself, I like this. I like this very much.

Posted by: toby928© calls honors at January 07, 2014 05:27 PM (QupBk)

 

No sex is biological.   Abstain   and your body will react to counteract your denial.  

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 01:31 PM (m2CN7)

300 Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 05:28 PM (XIxXP) Again I ask though: where are you sticking your limiting principle? Is it just a case by case basis? there are lots of rich people who snort Coke and do OK (probably better than some potheads) so why don't we make it legal?

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 07, 2014 01:31 PM (GaqMa)

301 Plus In know old farts that say-- pot in Vietnam was not a winner!! Those bastards!

Posted by: Pot Bownie Bakers Union #66 at January 07, 2014 01:32 PM (RJMhd)

302 It isnÂ’t arguing in bad faith to ask whether people should (continue to) go to prison for some action that is or will be illegal. Trying to avoid answering that question is arguing in bad faith. ThatÂ’s what laws do: they give the state the right to put people in prison for doing the things the law prohibits. For some laws, youÂ’re not going to find it hard to answer the question. When you do find it hard to answer the question, thatÂ’s evidence that maybe criminal law is the wrong tool in this case.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 07, 2014 01:32 PM (QF8uk)

303 Killing The Pusher-Bill O'Reily and some other author

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 07, 2014 01:32 PM (HVff2)

304 >>>No, that's simply false and you are doing what you accuse others of doing, arguing in bad faith, not even allowing the possibility that others have a legitimate opinion. no, not at all. There is no one here (I'm guessing) who would argue to re-criminalize alcohol just because of the real, dire effects of alcohol addiction. What's the difference, then? Let me propose a very obvious difference: Alcohol is familiar to most here. People are comfortable with it. It's something they personally enjoy, or at least know people who do. Pot, on the other hand, is alien, foreign, odd. It's not something people are comfortable with in the way they're comfortable with alcohol. People breezily dismiss the very real and serious effects of alcholism while talking up how terrible pot is. I agree pot is bad-- but I've known a few alcoholics. Let me remind you alcoholism is very serious indeed. So again, what IS the difference in treatment, apart from personal familiarity and comfort with alcohol? >>>People honestly believe that pot causes much more harm than good. Much more harm than you believe it causes. I believe it causes more harm than good too. But then, so does alcohol. It does not bother me anymore where people get their pleasure and I would suggest that's a very good rule of living and of politics. I believe that anti-pot stuff originates from a deep-seated human denigration of pleasure-seeking. We all know (or feel we know) that pleasure-seeking, while understandable, is a vaguely odious habit. And this causes us to react to pleasure-seeking in a particularly ambivalent way: We allow ourselves our own favored means of pleasure-seeking, calling them "traditional" or saying "the good outweighs the bad," while exercising our general distaste for pleasure-seeking by coming down on OTHER PEOPLE's pleasure-seeking choices. In this way, the scales are "balanced:" we've permitted some pleasure seeking (our own favored manners) while condemning others (the ones we don't enjoy). So we both approve and disapprove of pleasure-seeking. But our personal whims and preferences have no place in a system of official state forbiddances which may result in actual incarceration.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 01:32 PM (/FnUH)

305 In MA, EBT cards are accepted at strip clubs. Isn't that great?? Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 07, 2014 05:30 PM (IS2o0) Ya but if you stick that down a stripper's G-String you could cut her?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2014 01:32 PM (t3UFN)

306 I'd post but....zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Posted by: --- at January 07, 2014 01:32 PM (MMC8r)

307 Being pro pot legalization is a "Let it Burn" position for me. See what I did there? But, yeah, at this point, might as well just be a bunch of potheads.

Posted by: blaster at January 07, 2014 01:32 PM (W6bkf)

308 I figure if I can get enough people to legalize enough shit they'll start self-selecting anyday now... *** Open a park. That worked out so well for, where was it, the Netherlands(?)

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 07, 2014 01:32 PM (DmNpO)

309 haven't read all comments yet sorry if repeating

My problem with weed legalization is that the electorate will kill more brain cells and be even more overmedicated and disconnected. Freedom requires a moral, engaged intelligent electorate.

I lean toward the maximum freedom solution, but I suspect that the government would hijack this solution and use it as a actual "opiate" for the masses for increased control rather than increased freedom.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 01:32 PM (5ikDv)

310 285 Vashta Nerada at January 07, 2014 05:29 PM (AskuI)

That ship has sailed the Libertine Party not libertarian was running a con, they don't hate the welfare state they just wanna get high.

Obama undid the small restrictions we got Beijing Billy to do to Welfare Vashta...

Luckily we have a roaring economy that is unshackled by stupid bullshit regs to deal with the collateral damage....

or you know "not"...

Fuck it make it free for welfare recipients...

freeze them...immobilize them in their euphoria...

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 01:33 PM (TE35l)

311 Knew a dude once -- started out with small gif files. Then he found the weed. Next thing you know he's posting 3200 X 3200 pixel images and predicting some fat cat businessperson would win the presidency.

Posted by: Mr. William White [/i] at January 07, 2014 01:33 PM (RqqAn)

312

I'd get rid of meth by allowing PhRMA to come up with something better that can be sold over the counter. beat it with a better product, not prohibition. 

 

Dude? Adderal.  It's awesome.  And for a data point on how fucked up we are with trying to moralize everything, if I buy speed on the street I go to jail, but my (then) eleven-year-old son got a prescription for high quality pharmaceutical speed because of ADD.  So, like, it's ok as long as nobody enjoys it. 

 

I had an Adderal prescription for a while.  The generic is "amphetamine salts".

 

And I love how everyone bases their opinion on the fact that the stoners in high school had greasy hair and said "dude" too much.  I know some very successful people, private equity guys, who are regular stoners.  It's not good for you.  It wasn't good for me back in college, made me stupid, but I still managed an MBA from a really good school and I had 4.0 classmates who were potheads. 

 

Let's err on the side of liberty, not impose our tastes on everyone.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at January 07, 2014 01:33 PM (A0sHn)

313 76t: Eric Idle / Alan Price, Neil Innes American Dope Growers Union Dope Grower.....Laraine Newman Dope Grower: Every time you buy pot from Mexico, or Colombia... you're putting an American out of work. We here at the American Dope Growers Union support ourselves by growing marijuana in American soil. We've had a pretty hard time on our own. But with the union, we can lead decent lives and stay off welfare. That's MY union, and that's what our union label stands for. [ she holds up her union label, which is affixed to the outside of a plastic bag of marijuana, then begins to sing: ] Dope Grower: "Soooo look for, the Union label..." [ a group of other dope growers slowly surround her and join in the chorus ] Group: "when you are buying your joint, lid, or pound Remember somewhere, our Union's growing you'll be smoking, at the best price around You know we work hard, but who's complaining ????? So always look for, the Union label, it says we deal for the U.S. of A." [ logo appears on screen ] Announcer: This message brought to you by the Americn Dope Growers Union. [ dissolve to audience wide shot, zoom in on man with SUPER: "Has Name Tapes On All Clothing" ] [ fade ]

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2014 01:33 PM (t3UFN)

314 Mary Katherine Ham is quite possibly the sexiest creature to walk the earth next to Mila Jovovich and Kate Beckinsale.

We can fight over this, but you'll lose.

Posted by: tangonine at January 07, 2014 01:34 PM (x3YFz)

315 Well, I must cook dinner for my family, Spaghetti. Now, where is my special oregano. Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 05:22 PM (XIxXP) Hehe. A subtle way to mellow out the harsh spouse (not yours, mind you - just in general).

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 07, 2014 01:34 PM (IXrOn)

316 The manner in which vices are propagated within a society and the best way in which to counter such societal developments are complex matters. The easiest reaction leads to what could be termed "Soviet Conservatism." A desire to repress vices through sheer force and the "well-developed, expansive, omnipresent, politically-correct Police State." However, this is obviously a Statist solution. It is also a profoundly Atheistic solution, as the State is a profoundly Atheistic construct.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 07, 2014 01:34 PM (DhGW2)

317 I've seen this episode of Star Trek before, I think it was called, 'This Side Of Paradise'. We just have to make the Choom Gangers angry to counteract the effect of the Choom.

Posted by: Let The Weed Burn at January 07, 2014 01:34 PM (nbGZj)

318 It isnÂ’t arguing in bad faith to ask whether people should (continue to) go to prison for some action that is or will be illegal. Trying to avoid answering that question is arguing in bad faith. ThatÂ’s what laws do: they give the state the right to put people in prison for doing the things the law prohibits. For some laws, youÂ’re not going to find it hard to answer the question. When you do find it hard to answer the question, thatÂ’s evidence that maybe criminal law is the wrong tool in this case. Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 07, 2014 05:32 PM (QF8uk) Winner winner chicken fucking dinner.

Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 01:34 PM (DqlhY)

319 Meth is not weed, Coke is not weed, Heroine is not weed. Those things are very different. I've done them all cept heroine, even I wasn't that stupid. Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 05:28 PM (XIxXP) So by what stretch of logic do you support banning the one thing and permitting the other? If the libertarian position is that people ought to have freedom to do what they want, how can you draw the line after pot? How about some internal consistency here?

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 01:34 PM (bb5+k)

320 >>>>All drugs are bad. I don't like any of them (except nicotine, which i am trying to requit).
That doesn't mean we should throw people in jail for the Crime of Using a Drug I Don't Personally Enjoy.
Which is what this is, which is what this always has been.
Alcohol got prohibited due to teetotalers (among them some anti-Catholic folk) who didn't like it. Pot gets prohibited by people who say "I dig cigarettes and booze, but this Demon Weed is a step too far."
We are forever dreaming up new was to fuck with each other, for almost no reason at all, except to say that our Tribe has won this match.>>>>

Speak for yourself. That's not why I oppose legalization of pot.

Also, how come legalization of drugs for personal use in Mexico didn't do a thing to curb the activities of the cartels?

Because the cartels have diversified into non-drug areas. Now they specialize in kidnapping, extortion, and other Mafia-like activities. Violence in Mexico has actually increased since drug possession was legalized in 2009.

So stop using that as an argument for legalization. All the criminal enterprises in this country will simply shift over to even more violent crimes. By depriving them of their main source of income, we'll create thousands of little Mafias that'll begin preying on us directly.

http://tinyurl.com/mdcnnvo

Posted by: Tacky Adhesive at January 07, 2014 01:34 PM (+yhVL)

321 Meth is not weed, Coke is not weed, Heroine is not weed. Those things are very different. I've done them all cept heroine, even I wasn't that stupid.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 05:28 PM (XIxXP)

 

 

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

 

 

So where does legalization stop?  If the pot smokers are  legally enjoying their drug of choice, why not meth?  Why not heroin?  See where this goes?

 

Alcohol  itself feeds a lot of  chaos, why do we want to add to it? 

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2014 01:34 PM (rJc6l)

322 308 Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 07, 2014 05:32 PM (DmNpO)

We lost....Mary Katherine Ham is far more passionate for pot legalization than she ever has been for economic conservatism...

I am not hopeful my way will work before the nation goes under BUT it will separate wheat from chaff...

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 01:34 PM (TE35l)

323 I prefer to make it a misdemeanor punishable by fine. Legalize it if you want, as long as it is an aggravating factor in automobile accidents, robberies, and burglaries, and employers can still fire you if you test positive. Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 07, 2014 05:15 PM (AskuI) This is where I stand also. Misdemeanor with small fine for most levels of possession. Of course, if you have a truck full of it, no. The huge problem with it is that pot tests do not measure inebriation. Suppose you are smoking a lot on Friday. The next day you're not high at all. But the pot stays in your system as if you had just smoked a joint. The test just measures the THC in your system, not your impairment. So there is no reasonable test to see if a driver is high, just to see if they have pot in their system.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2014 01:34 PM (T0NGe)

324 The answer is decriminalization, not legalization. But that's too hard. It's easier to toss around all-or-nothing bumper-sticker slogans.

Of the three options- criminalization, legalization, and decriminalization, decriminalization is the worst in my opinion.

At first glance it might seem a reasonable compromise, but think of what message is being sent- that's it's still illegal, but not enforced so go ahead and break the law.  Continue to buy from a dealer.  Oh, and if a prosecutor doesn't like you, prepare to be singled out.

Make it legal or illegal.  I do not want to give agents of the state the discretion to decide who gets punished and who does not for the same crime.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2014 01:35 PM (SY2Kh)

325 I'll say this: With sex I did not crave it so much until I first experienced it; after that I was "hooked." With booze it was more a gradual, acquired taste.

Posted by: logprof: Go 'Noles! at January 07, 2014 01:35 PM (X3GkB)

326 They're not people they're hippies!!!

Posted by: Eric Cartman at January 07, 2014 01:35 PM (X3GkB)

327 >>>How's that going? so-so. I am at least on a major step down from smoking, cutting my usage in half or on some days by more than that. I am transitioning, though, back to where I was before, where I did not favor a cigarette much over the e-cig or nicorette.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 01:35 PM (/FnUH)

328 haven't read all comments yet sorry if repeating My problem with weed legalization is that the electorate will kill more brain cells and be even more overmedicated and disconnected. Posted by: noone, really at January 07, 2014 05:32 PM (5ikDv) on the other hand they'll be spending on all their cash on pot, versus donating to the democrat party... priorities

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 07, 2014 01:36 PM (IXrOn)

329 Let's err on the side of liberty, not impose our tastes on everyone.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at January 07, 2014 05:33 PM (A0sHn)


Ok, legalize, then regulate it like tobacco.

Posted by: [/i]KG at January 07, 2014 01:36 PM (p7BzH)

330 I lived in Co for a while. Glad they are trying it out there and not here. We shall see what it is. BTW didn't Paraguay or Portugal or Uruguay or someone legalize everything for personal use a few years ago? What happened there?

Posted by: Daybrother at January 07, 2014 01:36 PM (CAuLh)

331 We ban lots of chemicals due to the danger. We highly, highly regulate others. I'd just like to see some sort of framework for how to make a rational decision on this sort of thing.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 07, 2014 01:36 PM (ZPrif)

332 People like Bill O are why conservatives lose so many elections.   All that preaching about keeping Gvmt out of people's lives only applies to issues that aren't important to him and his ilk,

Posted by: Lloyd Loar at January 07, 2014 01:36 PM (9u2hL)

333 Ok, legalize, then regulate it like tobacco. Posted by: KG at January 07, 2014 05:36 PM (p7BzH) What's the half life of THC in the Human Body?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2014 01:36 PM (t3UFN)

334 In MA, EBT cards are accepted at strip clubs. Here in Pennsylvania a change is in the works. Apparently if the state passes laws to restrict access to certain establishments like like strip clubs, horse tracks, betting parlors, etc, they can avoid a loss of around 5% in reimbursement from the Feds. A local Republican had to propose the bill. I don't think it would be popular for a Democrat to propose such a bill, despite the fact it brings a zillion dollars into the state it would otherwise lose.

Posted by: Mr. William White [/i] at January 07, 2014 01:37 PM (RqqAn)

335 314 tangonine at January 07, 2014 05:34 PM (x3YFz)

I am quite cordial with Mrs Ham and we interacted in 2012 a lot on twitter...

I am not insulting her beyond recognizing this PARTICULAR freedom must mean a lot to her....

GREAT!

My preference for getting s stabilized economy before indulging was wrong and the obvious work of a fucked up intellect.

Let's put the cart before the horse I am certain it will motivate the horse to run faster....

I picked bad allies.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 01:37 PM (TE35l)

336 I like MKH's upper torso but otherwise, she doesn't go it for me.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 07, 2014 01:37 PM (DpEwG)

337 fuck it....legalize it all and let the bodies hit the floor.... if pot is the wonderdrug cure all the stoners say I'll be happy to be wrong and if not well I'll be happy to be right.... if enough kids embrace the cheech and chong lifestyle my son's sobriety is an asset. Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 05:30 PM (TE35l) And I can accept this as an alternative strategy too. Legalize it all, Let God sort it out.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 01:37 PM (bb5+k)

338 I support full legalization, but only during gay sex under the sacrament of marriage.

Posted by: --- at January 07, 2014 01:37 PM (MMC8r)

339 >>>Freedom requires a moral, engaged intelligent electorate. freedom also requires freedom.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 01:37 PM (/FnUH)

340 Substance abuse is obviously undesirable, both on a personal and societal level and does have a corrosive effect upon society and its development. However, Statism also has a profoundly corrosive effect upon society and its development.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 07, 2014 01:37 PM (DhGW2)

341 It does not bother me anymore where people get their pleasure and I would suggest that's a very good rule of living and of politics. The trouble is, this is yet another vice that taxpayers will subsidize for the Democrat voter base. We already pay for booze and strippers. We can say it won't happen, but it will. Eh, I'm ambivalent on this. I'd much rather fight for incandescents. I actually use those. This issue is truly a waste of time.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 07, 2014 01:38 PM (Ttj5v)

342 What's the half life of THC in the Human Body?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2014 05:36 PM (t3UFN)


I have no idea. I'm just saying, if tobacco has to be regulated the way it is, why should pot be spared? Is seconhand smoke from pot OK, but not from tobacco?

Posted by: [/i]KG at January 07, 2014 01:38 PM (p7BzH)

343 Eh I think O'Reilly is just trolling, mainly.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 07, 2014 01:38 PM (2TXEZ)

344 Because it's enjoyable. I also found sex to be pyschologically addicting. Indeed, I was hooked on the very first occasion. I believe that I actually said to myself, I like this. I like this very much. Bet you didn't steal from your sister to get it either.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 07, 2014 01:38 PM (8D0/R)

345 286 Sometimes Ace posts things so well thought out that I am in awe of his ability to comprehend complex ideas.



Then he makes a post like this and I realize that occasional flashes in the pan do not equate to brilliance.


Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 05:29 PM (bb5+k)

So, as you peruse this completely free blog, you felt the need to point out that the guy who devotes a large portion of his life into creating this isn't perfect?

/golf clap

unfuck yourself.

Posted by: tangonine at January 07, 2014 01:38 PM (x3YFz)

346 Freedom costs a $1.05. Which is a lot cheaper than good weed.

Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 01:39 PM (cQ2Q9)

347 there are lots of rich people who snort Coke and do OK (probably better than some potheads) so why don't we make it legal? Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 07, 2014 05:31 PM (GaqMa) Because most people can't afford coke and that would make us racists. Kidding. I'm talking about pot. Period. Those who throw the other drugs in there argue like liberals. Stick to the pot subject and run down the pro and con list I was taught to make years ago to help me solve problems. It is my belief, understanding that pot can be had anytime anyplace, that the cost of law enforcement, court and, screwing up otherwise productive citizens come at a greater cost than legalization. And the truth is, I like weed, better than alcohol. I don't smoke it because I can't, it's illegal.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 01:39 PM (XIxXP)

348 While we're distracted with this weed issue, the Irish are running around free with little or no consequences.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 07, 2014 01:39 PM (DpEwG)

349 Next up: a Constitutional right to smoke pot!

Posted by: chemjeff at January 07, 2014 01:40 PM (2TXEZ)

350 Ckuf. I grew up in a house where drugs were bought and sold. I watched people throw their lives away for drugs. I might be, like John McCain and torture, a bit too close to the issue to argue any further. See ya on the next one.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 07, 2014 01:40 PM (DmNpO)

351 That argument works, if the "war on drugs" and "no knock raids" and imprisonment of all offenders is also "transparent to your wallet".

Hint for you... It isn't.

I'm going to be curious to see if the "legalize drugs" cost ends up less than the "war on drugs" cost for marijuana in CO. If your only interest is your wallet, wouldn't that be better?

My wallet is my interest, and in my opinion, which should count for something because I'm Fing PAYING for it, pot use is more expensive both in terms of direct costs and indirect costs, for which I, get ready for it, PAY.  Disagree with me?  I don't care.  Stop making me pay, and you can be right all you want.

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 01:40 PM (6TB1Z)

352 Freedom costs a $1.05.

In fairness, the surplus Russian is still only about 25 cents.

Posted by: toby928© calls honors at January 07, 2014 01:40 PM (QupBk)

353 I have no idea. I'm just saying, if tobacco has to be regulated the way it is, why should pot be spared? Is seconhand smoke from pot OK, but not from tobacco? Posted by: KG at January 07, 2014 05:38 PM (p7BzH) If you don't know the half life of THC in the Human Body then how can you "legalize" it without knowing how long after you smoke it, you can drive, or operate on a patient, or fly a plane, or serve in the Military, or drive a truck, or operate heavy machinary, or yada yada yada?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2014 01:40 PM (t3UFN)

354 O'Reilly's argument is demagogic. Mary Katharine Ham is making, at heart, an argument about tradeoffs. She agrees with the general proposition that marijuana (like alcohol) is a dangerous drug and should only be consumed, if at all, in moderation. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oh, for fuck's sake. Can we PLEASE stop conceding arguments for the sake of emotion ? Please ? Marijuana and alcohol are decidedly NOT "dangerous drugs" unless you are going to label virtually half of the substances and activities a human being might engage in as "dangerous". This is the same line of thinking that leads to people labeling SUGAR as a toxic substance. Bullshit. How do you have a sensible discussion about whether or not to make marijuana legal when start from the beginning premise that it is a "dangerous drug", especially when it is no such thing. Shouldn't the DISCUSSION establish if marijuana is or is not actually "dangerous" ??? I'm so sick and tired of this country's ever mounting hyperbole.

Posted by: deadrody at January 07, 2014 01:40 PM (+Dpo7)

355 >>>Sometimes Ace posts things so well thought out that I am in awe of his ability to comprehend complex ideas. Then he makes a post like this and I realize that occasional flashes in the pan do not equate to brilliance. ... it's because I'm stoned on the reefers. but thank you for the initial compliment, which I appreciate. Even though you backhanded it at the end, I liked the first part. In fact, I'm right, and I will endeavor to prove this to you over the coming months.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 01:41 PM (/FnUH)

356 297
Bonus quatloos to anyone who can identify my movie reference in the above comment.

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 05:31 PM (J5lvw)



I have all the quatloos I need thank you very much.


Richard Vernon: What if your home... what if your family... what if your *dope* was on fire?

John Bender: Impossible, sir. It's in Johnson's underwear.

Posted by: drill_thrawl at January 07, 2014 01:41 PM (/2ciC)

357 Coincidentally, since Leninism was formalized before Leftists decided that they were excessively excited by Sodomy, the Soviet Union did not merely repress substance abuse using "the stereotypical Communist touch." Sodomites met the same fate as junkies. And one can hardly say that that made things any better.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 07, 2014 01:41 PM (DhGW2)

358 If the libertarian position is that people ought to have freedom to do what they want, how can you draw the line after pot? How about some internal consistency here? Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 05:34 PM (bb5+k) --Since I'm not a doctrinaire libertarian, my take is simply that weed is similar to alcohol enough that it should be legally treated similarly (e.g., don't drive after smoking it).

Posted by: logprof at January 07, 2014 01:41 PM (X3GkB)

359 But look at the pattern here. State-run lotteries. State-run packies. Casinos for state revenue. Pot for state revenue. What's next, hoo-as for state revenue? And then what? We're headed in a certain direction. The ultimate destination is obviously for the State's end.

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 01:41 PM (J5lvw)

360 337 D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 05:37 PM (bb5+k)

I'm angry that the GOP doesn't cut the debt, and I'll be pissed off that the Libertarians don't really give a shit about you know liberty but at least a lot of people will be giggling while I get to preparing.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 01:41 PM (TE35l)

361 I should caveat my last statement with 'not an issue in my opinion.' I get that other people feel differently.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 07, 2014 01:41 PM (0hIQR)

362 Open a park. That worked out so well for, where was it, the Netherlands(?) Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 07, 2014 05:32 PM (DmNpO) Switzerland. I think it was called the Platzpitz, but in English we know it as "needle park."

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 01:41 PM (bb5+k)

363
So again, what IS the difference in treatment, apart from personal familiarity and comfort with alcohol?

Alcohol is a lost cause.  Pot we still influence.  Just like coke, heroin and meth. 

Just because I can't prevent every leak, doesn't mean I tear down the dike.

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 01:41 PM (6TB1Z)

364 legalize, then regulate it like tobacco.
-
Maybe have DMV-like state stores sell it.  You go in, get a number, and wait for a few hours until they call your number.  That would cut down on pot use.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 07, 2014 01:41 PM (Hx5uv)

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

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 07, 2014 01:42 PM (PYAXX)

366 It's pretty hard to abuse pot and do anything. I mean literally anything. You'll just fall asleep.

Posted by: MJ at January 07, 2014 01:42 PM (PRPp1)

367 I believe that anti-pot stuff originates from a deep-seated human denigration of pleasure-seeking. We all know (or feel we know) that pleasure-seeking, while understandable, is a vaguely odious habit.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:32 PM (/FnUH)

Once again you are being internally inconsistent.

The vast majority of anti-pot people are not prohibitionists. They clearly accept the pleasures inherent in alcohol, but are suspicious of the risk/reward calculation for pot.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 07, 2014 01:42 PM (QFxY5)

368 I would also like to point out what Americans consider immoral/not immoral behavior, comparing the 1977 survey by Time, and the newly released one by CNN. Smoking pot has gone from immoral to not immoral. Living together from immoral to not immoral. Gay Stuff from immoral to immoral, but just barely (50-47). Meanwhile... Abortion went from not immoral to immoral in 25 years.

Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 01:42 PM (DqlhY)

369 Wrong! the line is from WEIRD SCIENCE

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 01:42 PM (J5lvw)

370 Ace, put down that ax, Ace. put.down.the.ax

Posted by: toby928© calls honors at January 07, 2014 01:43 PM (QupBk)

371 People like Bill O are why conservatives lose so many elections. All that preaching about keeping Gvmt out of people's lives only applies to issues that aren't important to him and his ilk,

Posted by: Lloyd Loar at January 07, 2014 05:36 PM (9u2hL)

 

Bill OReilly is not a conservative.  He is an  inconsistent populist.  

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 01:43 PM (m2CN7)

372 What's next, hoo-as for state revenue? And then what?
-
Gladitorial games.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 07, 2014 01:43 PM (Hx5uv)

373 So where does legalization stop? If the pot smokers are legally enjoying their drug of choice, why not meth? Why not heroin? See where this goes?

1.  Is it highly addictive? (meth, heroin, crack cocaine).

2.  Is taking a little too much likely to kill or hospitalize you? (heroin)

3.  Is the effect so strong that there's a high likelihood of it's use leading to dangerously or violent irrational behavior (PCP, LSD)?

If the answer to those three questions is "no", we should be asking why it's illegal.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2014 01:43 PM (SY2Kh)

374 freedom also requires freedom.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:37 PM (/FnUH)

 

 

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

 

 

Freedom requires total responsibility for one's own actions.  Much of the choices or lack thereof of Ocare is that we're having to pay for everyones irresponsibility, including loser potheads.

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2014 01:43 PM (rJc6l)

375 I don't climb mountains and set unlicensed camp fires, but, I guess the burden is on you to prove how mutual strangers won't unthinkingly destroy your whole subdivision, before I could let you can ban that kind of thing. Cause, freedom.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at January 07, 2014 01:43 PM (5xmd7)

376 358 logprof at January 07, 2014 05:41 PM (X3GkB)

Methamphetamine was perfectly legal until 78....

I happen to have far preferred uppers and downers to booze or what I saw in pot and coke users...

Never wanted to take LSD....

Now I am clean and sober(arguably) it is good to know YOUR highs are covered while *my* highs are not....

Imagine that it was all bullshit about "one is not better than the other man...."


Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 01:43 PM (TE35l)

377 *35 years.

Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 01:43 PM (DqlhY)

378 Freedom! Smells like burnt brownies in the morning!! Oh shit we might need a permit!

Posted by: Pot Bownie Bakers Union #66 at January 07, 2014 01:43 PM (RJMhd)

379 243 Pot is no more addictive than pussy. Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 05:22 PM (cQ2Q9) Tell me about it.

Posted by: Barney at January 07, 2014 01:44 PM (0FSuD)

380 >>>Eh, I'm ambivalent on this. I'd much rather fight for incandescents. I actually use those. This issue is truly a waste of time. it's all the same fight. It's the fight of people Who Wish To Be Left Alone against People Who Want to Control You Because They Know Better. I am tired of drawing distinctions between ONE kind of controlling nonsense and another kind of controlling nonsense. I'm done with all the controlling nonsense. I don't wish to argue any further that MY preferences should be respected while I tacitly support the criminalization of other people's preferences. I wish to be treated like a Free Citizen and Responsible Adult. And that means I'm going to have to treat other people like Free Citizens and Responsible Adults, too. Even if they're really not very responsible. Even if they engage in behavior I wouldn't engage in myself.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 01:44 PM (/FnUH)

381 I love Pot, I ought to be free to marry it.

Posted by: Marriage Equality For Choom Lovers! at January 07, 2014 01:44 PM (nbGZj)

382 Some drug penalties are too severe is not "legalize all drugs." Congress went crazy over the cocaine problem in the 70s and subsequently. Cocaine addiction became less problematic than the associated organized crime due to prohibition and judicial-prison costs. Not sure what to do, but cocaine is still out there.

Posted by: Beagle at January 07, 2014 01:44 PM (sOtz/)

383 So again, what IS the difference in treatment, apart from personal familiarity and comfort with alcohol? Historically humans drank alcohol because water went putrid. It became a part of our culture.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 07, 2014 01:44 PM (0hIQR)

384 Dammit. Why am I always working when these pot threads with ace are posted?!?

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at January 07, 2014 01:45 PM (v/2zq)

385 Great conversation per usual, musttake care of youngens, later.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 01:45 PM (XIxXP)

386 Much of the choices or lack thereof of Ocare is that we're having to pay for everyones irresponsibility, including loser potheads. ...and alcoholics, and tweakers, and swingers, and skateboarders, and skiers, and skydivers...

Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 01:45 PM (cQ2Q9)

387 >>>Once again you are being internally inconsistent. The vast majority of anti-pot people are not prohibitionists. They clearly accept the pleasures inherent in alcohol, but are suspicious of the risk/reward calculation for pot. ... WTF? I said twice that I doubt anyone (ANYONE) here supports re-criminalization of alcohol. And your response is: it's wrong to say we'd re-criminalize alcohol.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 01:45 PM (/FnUH)

388 What's next, hoo-as for state revenue?

Interesting.

Posted by: Caligula at January 07, 2014 01:45 PM (QupBk)

389 I wish to be treated like a Free Citizen and Responsible Adult. And that means I'm going to have to treat other people like Free Citizens and Responsible Adults, too. Even if they're really not very responsible. Even if they engage in behavior I wouldn't engage in myself. Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:44 PM (/FnUH) Except if someone is in a "mind altered" state because of grass and they do something to cause harm to another individual? Then what?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2014 01:45 PM (t3UFN)

390 Dammit. Why am I always working when these pot threads with ace are posted?!? Hehehe....

Posted by: EC at January 07, 2014 01:46 PM (doBIb)

391 And if you actually think pot and alcohol are inherently "dangerous" (LOL) then I want to see actual evidence of that fact, not polls and not anecdotes. MILLIONs of people smoke pot and, frankly, a LARGE percentage of them you wouldn't have a clue about. So don't point to some wastoid stoner and say, THERE, see, its dangerous. Alcohol, by virtue of the horrific cost of drunk driving has VASTLY more negative consequences than pot, and not by a small margin - and yet it is not inherently dangerous. The people that USE it are the dangers, as are the large steel vehicle they drive afterwards.

Posted by: deadrody at January 07, 2014 01:46 PM (+Dpo7)

392 Same dumb thing Pat Buchanan recently said about weed:  sure, beer's a gateway drug to hard liquor, but weed's a gateway drug to harder drugs.  The stupid in that statement just hurts.

Posted by: SFGoth at January 07, 2014 01:46 PM (W439l)

393 Did Ayn Rand snort--? That's what I really want to know.

Posted by: Pot Bownie Bakers Union #66 at January 07, 2014 01:47 PM (RJMhd)

394 >>>>Please see my post earlier today which describes the dishonest tactic of denying you're doing what you're obviously doing.
Obviously you are in favor of a paternalistic regime. Half of your points are about protecting people from their own choices. That IS paternalism, of course. You're just insisting we call it something else when you do it, because to you it is a pleasing, nice paternalism.>>>>

Nope. Sorry. I know what I'm in favor of, and it's not a "paternalistic regime." That's just a nice, pleasing attempt to shut me up. It's the conservative's version of shouting "RACIST!" I'm not being dishonest either. Nor did I write about protecting people from their own choices.

What I wrote about are the real-life consequences of legalizing pot. For whatever reason you're not willing to confront those consequences in all their stinky glory.

YOU think I oppose the legalization of pot because I don't want others doing what I don't like doing. In reality, I oppose the legalization of pot because I've lived in societies where it was legal, and they were horrible places. People voted over and over for more and more government subsidies, and they sat on their asses and smirked about how they were getting away with murder, and how anyone who worked for a living and created capital was an idiot.

I've been there. I've lived it. Have you?

Posted by: Tacky Adhesive at January 07, 2014 01:47 PM (+yhVL)

395 I would suggest that the *gateway* element to pot arises from If pot makes me feel this good, imagine how good XYZ will make me feel… Indeed, it probably does right now. “Pot is a dangerous, highly addictive drug that will turn your mind to jelly. Cocaine is also a dangerous, highly addictive drug that will turn your mind to jelly.” “Good god, I promise to avoid them all!” Two years later in college. “Hey, my mind isn’t jelly. I stop using it over the summer and don’t care. They lied to me about pot. Maybe they lied to me about cocaine, too.”

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 07, 2014 01:47 PM (QF8uk)

396 246 --- but now that the Pro-Pot Libertarians got their way on pot watch them forget about actual enumerated rights that are under assault... I understand that is a side effect of their kick. Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 05:22 PM (TE35l) ----------------------- THIS. Funny how the ONLY freedoms the Left wants are those that result in the most dissolute, dependent populace.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at January 07, 2014 01:47 PM (dfYL9)

397 380 ace at January 07, 2014 05:44 PM (/FnUH)

Which was the argument I made in my cryptospeak the last time we had this row writ large.

We are not getting our lightbulbs back Ace, the Libertines don't give a shit.

Enjoy the show is about all we have left, so I aim to.

"Legalize it!*"

*except light bulbs, coal, etc etc

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 01:47 PM (TE35l)

398 Ok, so after Pot and Gay Marriage gets legalized do we get to start fighting about light bulbs and shower heads? Or will we just move on to meth and polygamy? Cause it seems we never get around to the freedom to do stuff I want to do.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 07, 2014 01:47 PM (ZPrif)

399 There are plenty of things that need fixing. Somewhere along the way to getting these things fixed, the federal government will no longer be powerful enough to criminalize marijuana at the federal level. As soon as the potheads get their pet freedom, they will abandon the rest of the fight. If there's one thing you can rely on a pothead for, it's unreliability.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 01:47 PM (V3kRK)

400 With all the comparisons between weed and tobacco, I'd ike to remind everyone that there is a substantial crowd out there that DOES want tobacco outlawed or at a minimum regulated by the FDA (pathway to banning it, natch).
 
Tobacco has already been demonized so thoroughly that when you watch a movie or show these days, it's the biggest tell of all that a person is one of the 'bad guys'; he or she smokes. It's an absolute tell with cigs, but rare exceptions can be found for pipe or cigar smokers.

Posted by: GnuBreed at January 07, 2014 01:47 PM (wNF3N)

401 it's all the same fight. It's the fight of people Who Wish To Be Left Alone against People Who Want to Control You Because They Know Better. I understand and applaud the principle, but I view things differently. This is the state giving one freedom to take others.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 07, 2014 01:48 PM (chqG9)

402 'unlicensed camp fire' hahaha..oh wait.

Posted by: John Native at January 07, 2014 01:48 PM (apx2F)

403 Charles C.W. Cooke, for one. He replied to one of my tweets. It's the standard libertarian position and the only intellectually consistent one.

It's also an example of why the Libertarian Party consistently comes in with single digit shares of the vote.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2014 01:48 PM (SY2Kh)

404 Another FNN segment I saw. And another blowhard, this time BOR. Too much. He was also conflating teenage texting with marijuana legalization and insisting these were signs of the apocalypse. Bill OÂ’Reilly = Mr. Wilson from Denis the Menace.

Posted by: grandmalcaesar at January 07, 2014 01:48 PM (yrohn)

405 There is, however, an important moral lesson which might be gleamed from the legalization of marijuana. And that is that not everything which is legal is moral or beneficial. In fact, most things which are legal are quite immoral and unbeneficial. Examples would include alcohol, Sodomy, libidinousness in general, tobacco, fast food, pretty much all TV shows, pretty much all movies, and pretty much all video and computer games. Since the Government cannot really repress any of these, there is a peculiar belief that they are all somehow "sufficiently beneficial," especially in the "right quantity," which, if there is any such thing, most people never really come all that close to approximating.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 07, 2014 01:49 PM (DhGW2)

406 BTW didn't Paraguay or Portugal or Uruguay or someone legalize everything for personal use a few years ago? What happened there? Posted by: Daybrother at January 07, 2014 05:36 PM (CAuLh) Portugal. If you listen to the Socialist Government of Portugal, their new initiative is a raging success! If you listen to the Doctors who work in Portugal, it is a colossal failure, but the Libertarians keep hyping the Government line because it goes along with what they want to believe. http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-Portugals-Great-Drug-Experiment

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 01:49 PM (bb5+k)

407 I want 99 tacos for 2 cents!

Posted by: Count de Monet at January 07, 2014 01:49 PM (BAS5M)

408 And your response is:

it's wrong to say we'd re-criminalize alcohol.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:45 PM (/FnUH)

You said that " I believe that anti-pot stuff originates from a deep-seated human denigration of pleasure-seeking."

My point is that many people who disapprove of pot legalization are themselves drinkers, who clearly embrace "pleasure seeking."

Maybe it isn't the pleasure-seeking that they dislike. maybe it's the secondary effects of pot smoking!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 07, 2014 01:49 PM (QFxY5)

409 Alcohol, by virtue of the horrific cost of drunk driving has VASTLY more negative consequences than pot, and not by a small margin - and yet it is not inherently dangerous. The people that USE it are the dangers, as are the large steel vehicle they drive afterwards. Posted by: deadrody at January 07, 2014 05:46 PM (+Dpo7) If pot is legalized I suspect you will see a related dramatic rise in pot high accidents also. Now I wll say that in my yoots when I was "high" instead of driving fast I usually drove at 5MPH thinking I was going 95, but that aside, with increased use will come increased irresponsible use. Count on it

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2014 01:49 PM (t3UFN)

410 Cause it seems we never get around to the freedom to do stuff I want to do. Pants-optional workplace environments. No pants! No justice! *bangs pots and pans together*

Posted by: EC at January 07, 2014 01:49 PM (doBIb)

411 Eh, I'm ambivalent on this. I'd much rather fight for incandescents. I actually use those. This issue is truly a waste of time.

it's all the same fight. It's the fight of people Who Wish To Be Left Alone against People Who Want to Control You Because They Know Better.

When the people who use incandescents come to me with their hands out, you'll have a point.

Damn those elliptical Americans.

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 01:50 PM (6TB1Z)

412 I'm in favor of legalization of all drugs merely because of Darwin.

I figure that most of those who consume will kill themselves off or otherwise remove themselves from the workforce. Less competition for me.

ON the  other hand, there are two problems: (1) there will be a long period of thefts and general lawlessness until they kill themselves off and (2) far too many will be supported in their habits by the welfare state.

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 07, 2014 01:50 PM (VjL9S)

413 It should also be noted that a desire to ban some of those things is not necessarily a manifestation of "extreme Conservatism." After all, Bloomberg is hardly an "extreme Conservative."

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 07, 2014 01:50 PM (DhGW2)

414 But look at the pattern here. State-run lotteries. State-run packies. Casinos for state revenue. Pot for state revenue. What's next, hoo-as for state revenue? And then what? We're headed in a certain direction. The ultimate destination is obviously for the State's end. Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 05:41 PM (J5lvw) --I very much fear this. James Taranto wrote a column a couple years ago making similar arguments (it should be in a BOTW edition; search for "the libertarian case against legalization").

Posted by: logprof at January 07, 2014 01:50 PM (X3GkB)

415 So we give in to the Libertarians to "win" their vote--that's the goal? Holy snikes! They'll never get off the couch--once they get their mayjane easier. Counter--productive.

Posted by: Pot Bownie Bakers Union #66 at January 07, 2014 01:50 PM (RJMhd)

416 In fact, I'm right, and I will endeavor to prove this to you over the coming months. Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:41 PM (/FnUH) Trip to Denver?

Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 01:50 PM (DqlhY)

417 Can we at least change the asset forfeiture laws to eliminate the presumption of guilt?

Posted by: Caligula at January 07, 2014 01:50 PM (QupBk)

418 Yeah, depending on the ethnic group we have strong evidence we actually evolved to process alcohol, just like we evolved to drink milk. And, just like with milk, those genes are not uniformly distributed among the planet's ethnic groups.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 07, 2014 01:50 PM (ZPrif)

419 I'm in agreement with Ace here but there is the problem of freedom and responsibility here. We live in an irresponsible society and they will expect society to pay for their problems with pot.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 07, 2014 01:51 PM (oFCZn)

420 396 Margarita DeVille at January 07, 2014 05:47 PM (dfYL9)

The main thing to me is, at the end of the day that we are not a serious people.  In not being a serious people, we are as warned by the founders, unworthy of our Republic and the Bill of Rights that was part of it.  Things like Mary K Ham(not to be evil or single her out) arguing with more passion and forcefulness for pot than economic matters means the "young" punditry is conceding the majority of the nation are unserious.

Thats' okay, hell maybe hepcat GOP will work gangbusters...dunno but I do know the nation is just about done as resembling anything it was.

I also know I'll give even less a fuck about a pro-pot GOP than has ITS Presidents signing light-bulb bans.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 01:51 PM (TE35l)

421

Freedom requires total responsibility for one's own actions.

 

-

 

This.   Before we         start legalizing drugs, we need to first remove the subsidies for being a failure.   When everyone is responsible for themselves and    their own future, they will be responsible enough to handle the choices.   I am all for letting       my fellow citizens     do whatever they want, as long as    their activity     does not negatively impact me, or     demand a portion of my paycheck.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 07, 2014 01:51 PM (AskuI)

422 freedom also requires freedom. Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:37 PM (/FnUH) Freedom requires a nation that can protect it's own existence.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 01:51 PM (bb5+k)

423 /off mad roman sock

Posted by: toby928© at January 07, 2014 01:51 PM (QupBk)

424 Except if someone is in a "mind altered" state because of grass and they do something to cause harm to another individual? Then what? Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2014 05:45 PM (t3UFN) Or, on their iPhone while driving. I haven't been to a game, concert, what have you, where I didn't smell or see pot. It's like it's already legal. Law enforcement already ignores the little guy. I've got to ta-ta, too. We need to install a new "Smart TV, now, and I wish I was stoned, because this is the suck.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 07, 2014 01:51 PM (IXrOn)

425 OT: Kate Upton has gotten unpleasantly fat.

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 01:51 PM (6TB1Z)

426 I want 99 tacos for 2 cents! Posted by: Count de Monet at January 07, 2014 05:49 PM (BAS5M) Dude, it's 2 tacos for 99 cents!

Posted by: Mr. Jack Box at January 07, 2014 01:51 PM (DqlhY)

427 SEA CHANGE! I get it now. *snrk*

Posted by: Andrew S. at January 07, 2014 01:51 PM (O5DfA)

428 Also, how come legalization of drugs for personal use in Mexico didn't do a thing to curb the activities of the cartels? Because the cartels have diversified into non-drug areas. Now they specialize in kidnapping, extortion, and other Mafia-like activities. Violence in Mexico has actually increased since drug possession was legalized in 2009. It seems we have a laboratory that has produced results. They are inconvenient, we must reject them.

Posted by: Choomate Scientists at January 07, 2014 01:51 PM (T0NGe)

429 ...and alcoholics, and tweakers, and swingers, and skateboarders, and skiers, and skydivers...

Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 05:45 PM (cQ2Q9)

 

 

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

 

 

Those were  understood  in my comment. 

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2014 01:51 PM (rJc6l)

430 Haven't you noticed that every major policy coming out of govt today somehow enhances State revenue? Amnesty. Climate Change regulations. Unemployment checks! obamacare Casinos Pot Mileage tax Internet sales tax Don't you see? It's always for the Good Of The State. Guess what? You're the State. More accurately, you're but mere wards of the State. The State is Father. The State is Mother. Obey your parents.

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 01:52 PM (J5lvw)

431 417 Caligula at January 07, 2014 05:50 PM (QupBk)

No they're needed for political opponents of superstate INC....

Gibson Guitars says hi!

Getting Stoned was more important than defending the bill of rights.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 01:52 PM (TE35l)

432 If our society was 95%+ Amerindian I'd support banning alcohol because we would be too genetically susceptible to the damage. The costs would far outweigh the benefits. Different chemicals have different effects on different ethnic groups. It's why different cultures developed differing cultural mores around alcohol.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 07, 2014 01:52 PM (ZPrif)

433

366 It's pretty hard to abuse pot and do anything.

I mean literally anything. You'll just fall asleep.

Posted by: MJ at January 07, 2014 05:42 PM (PRPp1)

 

I like TV.

Posted by: Barry O'Brainy at January 07, 2014 01:52 PM (wAQA5)

434 Wait...maybe we give them pot to get them to get the hell out of politics.

Posted by: Pot Bownie Bakers Union #66 at January 07, 2014 01:52 PM (RJMhd)

435 In reality, I oppose the legalization of pot because I've lived in societies where it was legal, and they were horrible places. People voted over and over for more and more government subsidies, and they sat on their asses I just want this highlighted. I'll be okay with pot being legal the moment I'm given some kind of assurance that I won't be on the hook for their medical bills and living expenses. The very fact that it is the FSA most in favor of legalizing weed is enough reason for me to be against it.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 07, 2014 01:52 PM (PYAXX)

436 OT: Kate Upton has gotten unpleasantly fat.

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 05:51 PM (6TB1Z)

 

She can make a fortune as a plus sized model.   

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 01:52 PM (m2CN7)

437 >>>Historically humans drank alcohol because water went putrid. It became a part of our culture. and? Yes I know that alcohol is more ingrained (see what I did there?) in our culture that pot, obviously. But why should this fact dictate that one can be enjoyed openly, while the other can and sometimes does result in PRISON? You know, I have a friend. A pothead. I know pot's bad because he got stoned a lot and got very lethargic and depressed. (But most drug addiction is a chicken and egg thing -- does the depression and unhappiness spur the addiction, or does the addiction spur the depression and unhappiness.) He's quit pot for New Years, by the way. But anyway, a year ago we were having this discussion, and I was arguing many of the points commenters are, on the anti-legalization side. And then my friend just said to me: "Do you think I should be in jail?" here's the answer: NO. People upthread do not want to answer CAC when he asks the same question. It's a tough question. People are trying to say something along the lines of this: "I want the govenment to continue registering its official disapproval of drug use as a means of social control and keeping people from abusing drugs.' But when it's put to you starkly: "Do you think that otherwise law-abiding people should go to PRISON for taking a minor league euphoric?" Well, in that case, it's hard to say "Yes, I think what I see before me is a CRIMINAL owing PRISON PENITENCE.' The square cannot be circled, no matter how hard people try to argue for a continued Official Government Disapproval of Drug Use as Expressed in Law. No, goddamnit, these people should not be in PRISON for SMOKING POT, for god's sake! I am reminded of the arguments once made for the continued criminalization of sodomy (both gay and straight). Most people who argued in favor of keeping the books on the law (like GW Bush) called them a mere "expression of traditional morality," but did not favor throwing people in jail for getting a blowjob from a girlfriend. What the hell are we doing arguing to keep laws on the books, mandating PRISON for violators, if we don't actually wish to see people jailed for these extremely minor infractions?

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 01:53 PM (/FnUH)

438 Dude, it's 2 tacos for 99 cents! Posted by: Mr. Jack Box at January 07, 2014 05:51 PM (DqlhY) The Pot makes The Maths hard!

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 07, 2014 01:53 PM (oFCZn)

439 There is, in fact, a fallacy in which many people, especially BOR, engage. And that would be that taking a fundamentally Centrist position and "extremizing" it somehow makes it automatically Conservative.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 07, 2014 01:53 PM (DhGW2)

440 Freedom requires a nation that can protect it's own existence. Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 05:51 PM (bb5+k) ****** Damn--nicely played. So you read your Plato.

Posted by: Pot Bownie Bakers Union #66 at January 07, 2014 01:53 PM (RJMhd)

441 All of you know someone that smokes pot regularly. He or she might even be a normal person, with a good job.

Posted by: MJ at January 07, 2014 01:53 PM (PRPp1)

442 Different chemicals have different effects on different ethnic groups. It's why different cultures developed differing cultural mores around alcohol.

So, you're saying there's a firewater gene?  What's next, the lutefisk gene?

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 01:53 PM (6TB1Z)

443 I work in construction and in my area their are many small contractors which typically means no drug testing. As a result I have worked with a slew of burnouts and have not fondness for pot or the culture surrounding it.

I have done a 180 on decriminalization because I want to see freedom of all kinds maximized.

Posted by: Typo Dynamofo at January 07, 2014 01:54 PM (FtCW+)

444 You totally left out that he did it to Juan Williams too. I am going to look at Juan Williams getting chewed out by O'Reilly differently in the future and hope he finally snaps and chokes Bill.

Posted by: Meekle at January 07, 2014 01:54 PM (kqHcW)

445 So, as you peruse this completely free blog, you felt the need to point out that the guy who devotes a large portion of his life into creating this isn't perfect? /golf clap unfuck yourself. Posted by: tangonine at January 07, 2014 05:38 PM (x3YFz) The blog may be free, but that doesn't shield someone from criticism of their ideas. Ace's position on this topic doesn't seem to be as well thought out as his commentary has been on others. It's just knee jerk Libertarian drug advocacy.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 01:54 PM (bb5+k)

446 Sven, I want them to reduce the limitations on oil drilling. Only cheap gas gets the economy going. A pot economy is not going to do it. Pot and abortion, everything else they regulate mercilessly.

Posted by: Beagle at January 07, 2014 01:55 PM (sOtz/)

447 432. Sounds good, but remember a great many of our Latin American friends, visitors and guests have majority Amerindian blood....

Posted by: JoeyBagels at January 07, 2014 01:55 PM (simoH)

448 Pot kills the taste of the peyote.

Posted by: --- at January 07, 2014 01:55 PM (MMC8r)

449 ...and they can get drivers licenses.....

Posted by: JoeyBagels at January 07, 2014 01:55 PM (simoH)

450 pep, we have confirmed that the lutefisk gene is in the snow wop's DNA. Like, last year...

Posted by: Meekle at January 07, 2014 01:56 PM (kqHcW)

451 >>>It's just knee jerk Libertarian drug advocacy. it's not knee jerk, it's well-considered. And yes, I am sick of everyone who would control anyone else, whether it's you or obama, or a Leftist Moral Scold or a Rightist Moral Scold. I am, yes, a Libertarian.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 01:56 PM (/FnUH)

452 Pot and abortion, everything else they regulate mercilessly. Well, voting's pretty much unregulated.

Posted by: --- at January 07, 2014 01:56 PM (MMC8r)

453 We don't know all the details at this stage, most likely many, many genes are involved, probably hundreds, in how different ethnic groups vary in alcohol metabolization.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 07, 2014 01:56 PM (ZPrif)

454 >>>ou totally left out that he did it to Juan Williams too. i ignore everything Juan-Williams-related.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 01:56 PM (/FnUH)

455 It's funny- a lot of the arguments against pot legalization are extremely similar to those employed by gun control advocates.

You don't want to be a Bloomberg, do you?  Don't be a Bloomberg.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2014 01:56 PM (SY2Kh)

456 339 >>>Freedom requires a moral, engaged intelligent electorate.

*freedom also requires freedom.*

And the most free nation in history brought us Choom Boy .

My head hurts.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 01:57 PM (5ikDv)

457 "Do you think I should be in jail?"

here's the answer: NO. People upthread do not want to answer CAC when he asks the same question.

I'll answer it.  No, you shouldn't be in jail.  You should be on your own, but you aren't.  I'm on the hook for your stupidity.  Just like we tell our incredibly annoying teenagers, my house, my rules.  As long as the government is set up to fix your boo-boos, I have a say.  I'd prefer not to have to have any role in your life at all, but since that doesn't seem to be an option, I vote for minimizing the impact of your sorry life on mine.

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 01:57 PM (6TB1Z)

458 Wait, what?

Posted by: Andrew S. at January 07, 2014 01:57 PM (Hi24w)

459 I suggest everyone else follow this rule as well. It's a good rule. Life's too short for Juan Williams.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 01:57 PM (/FnUH)

460 I'm pro decriminalization/legalization because the current "war" is costly, wasteful, ineffective, and an intrusion on personal liberty. It empowers the state and treats citizens as subjects. In my view, me enjoying a joint on the weekends should not make me a criminal or outlaw. I work hard, provide for my family, and I deserve the right to smoke a naturally occurring plant for recreation if I so choose. Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness and all. But I laugh at the leftist pro-pot crowd. These are the same folks that are outlawing smoking in private houses out here in California. How they deal with the logical inconsistency baffles me. I also loath the fact that tax revenue is the carrot enticing governments to push for legalization. Tax man already is fat and too well fed.

Posted by: california red at January 07, 2014 01:57 PM (7jrCM)

461 I think we should criminalize Hot Air's shitty website javascript code. Damn site locks up my work computer on a daily basis.

Posted by: Serious Cat at January 07, 2014 01:57 PM (PVNda)

462 435 AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 07, 2014 05:52 PM (PYAXX)

We've lost the fight Allen...may as well try to legalize it all and let people cash out at X% rate.

The next big push will be the stoner nation trying to prevent employers from pre-employment drug screening...not economic sanity.

Push the pedal to the floor my friend.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 01:57 PM (TE35l)

463 In fact, I'm right, and I will endeavor to prove this to you over the coming months. Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:41 PM (/FnUH) You may in fact be right, but from what I can see, there isn't enough information to make this call. Colorado is an interesting experiment and I hope to learn something whichever way it turns out.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 01:58 PM (bb5+k)

464 So what are the consequences of legalization?

Posted by: MJ at January 07, 2014 01:58 PM (PRPp1)

465 Argh. The "but what if someone does something bad while high, what then?" argument drives me up a fucking wall. If a person runs a red light while high, and kills a pedestrian, you fucking arrest that motherfucker. You don't then have to arrest the person who stayed at home, smoked a bowl, and went to bed. If a person runs a red light while drunk, and kills a pedestrian, you fucking arrest the motherfucker. You don't arrest the guy who stayed home, drank, and passed out on the couch. If a person runs a red light while texting, and kills a pedestrian, you fucking arrest that idiot. You don't arrest the girl who texted at home or in class and left her phone in the backseat while driving. Didn't we have this "driving recklessly is already illegal" debate the last time MADD tried to change the legal limit?

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at January 07, 2014 01:58 PM (v/2zq)

466 I am tired of drawing distinctions between ONE kind of controlling nonsense and another kind of controlling nonsense. I'm done with all the controlling nonsense. I don't wish to argue any further that MY preferences should be respected while I tacitly support the criminalization of other people's preferences. I wish to be treated like a Free Citizen and Responsible Adult. And that means I'm going to have to treat other people like Free Citizens and Responsible Adults, too. Even if they're really not very responsible. Even if they engage in behavior I wouldn't engage in myself. Posted by: ace Woot! No more banning!

Posted by: Daybrother at January 07, 2014 01:58 PM (TAICi)

467 THC is a mind altering drug and legalizing it without first spelling out when, where, and how it can be used is a recipe for disaster

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2014 01:58 PM (t3UFN)

468 Gun control is certainly not a Conservative position. And one should remember why that is. It is an attempt to leverage State power to limit individual freedom. There are, granted, differences having to do with established traditions and the explicit Constitution.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 07, 2014 01:59 PM (DhGW2)

469 Ace at 117, spot on. (except for your spelling of stretch) I really hate the "I have to pay for your bad choices" argument. And I don't understand why those who use this line of argument don't see the inherent problems.

Posted by: grandmalcaesar at January 07, 2014 01:59 PM (yrohn)

470 The thing about govt is that the rulers never cease in thinking up new ways to increase the State's coffers. And we go along with it because we naturally and naively assume the additional revenue will go towards debt payments. But the other thing you need to know about govt is that the rulers spend more when they have more. So enough of all this casino/pot shit. It's just a big fucking scam.

Posted by: soothie at January 07, 2014 01:59 PM (J5lvw)

471 Ethnic Germans process alcohol differently than ethnic Finns, and different from ethnic Han Chinese, and different from ethnic Navajo. These are well-established scientific facts.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 07, 2014 01:59 PM (ZPrif)

472 "Do you think I should be in jail?" This is kind of taking it to an extreme--sort of a snowball argument. People get fined for not wearing their seat belts. Not wearing a seat belt doesn't really endanger anyone else or rarely. Unless your flying body hits the highway. You still get fined. Recreational pot users are not thrown in jail.

Posted by: Pot Bownie Bakers Union #66 at January 07, 2014 01:59 PM (RJMhd)

473 Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at January 07, 2014 05:58 PM (v/2zq) So what's the 1/2 life of THC in the Human Body?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2014 01:59 PM (t3UFN)

474 Colorado is an interesting experiment and I hope to learn something whichever way it turns out.


Posted by: D-Lamp

We already did that.  It's called the Netherlands.

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 01:59 PM (6TB1Z)

475 392 Same dumb thing Pat Buchanan recently said about weed: sure, beer's a gateway drug to hard liquor, but weed's a gateway drug to harder drugs. The stupid in that statement just hurts. Posted by: SFGoth at January 07, 2014 05:46 PM (W439l) --LMAO. In all of college I had a grand total of one bottle of beer. I went straight for the harder stuff because I didn't care for the taste of beer back then.

Posted by: logprof at January 07, 2014 02:00 PM (X3GkB)

476 We are forever dreaming up new was to fuck with each other, for almost no reason at all, except to say that our Tribe has won this match. Posted by: ace you nailed it ace. why can't people mind their own fucking business anymore?

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 02:00 PM (KHo8t)

477 So enough of all this casino/pot shit. It's just a big fucking scam. Vice is not a healthy way to fund a society.

Posted by: --- at January 07, 2014 02:00 PM (MMC8r)

478 I mean literally anything. You'll just fall asleep. Posted by: MJ at January 07, 2014 05:42 PM (PRPp1 Wait? Pay the Pizza delivery guy, eat pizza, solve world's problems or play cards. Then fall asleep.

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 07, 2014 02:00 PM (0FSuD)

479 O'Reilly is a fucking idiot.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at January 07, 2014 02:00 PM (KSjsb)

480 It's just knee jerk Libertarian drug advocacy. D-Lamp is to Pot what Ken was to Porn.

Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 02:00 PM (cQ2Q9)

481 People have to be able to make choices, or else life is meaningless. This goes for most civic (public policy) and private (spiritual/personal) pursuits.

Posted by: Meekle at January 07, 2014 02:01 PM (kqHcW)

482 People upthread do not want to answer CAC when he asks the same question. Okay. I will. Yes. I do. Because he's knowingly breaking the law which says he'll go to jail for doing that. I also want people who speed, pass on the shoulder, fail to use their turn indicators, and/or fail to have their seat-belts on ticketed. And if they fail to pay their fines, I want them jailed. Now, you can argue that prison is over-the-top for pot possession or usage (and I would agree, actually- it seems much more like misdemeanor land to me, and therefore a fine should be levied, not prison time). You can also argue that it not be against the law to smoke pot at all. And, in pure theory, I might agree with you. However, once that theory hits the real-world, there are practical concerns, and until those practical concerns are addressed, I do not support legalization of pot.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 07, 2014 02:01 PM (PYAXX)

483 Not wearing a seat belt doesn't really endanger anyone else or rarely.

Neither does not wearing a motorcycle helmet.  Until your head hits the curb, and my taxes pay for your droolcups. 

Posted by: Gary Busey at January 07, 2014 02:01 PM (6TB1Z)

484 I could be wrong-- are they throwing recreational, casual pot smokers in jail somewhere?

Posted by: Pot Bownie Bakers Union #66 at January 07, 2014 02:01 PM (RJMhd)

485 OT: Kate Upton has gotten unpleasantly fat.
-
You're talking about the woman I love.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 07, 2014 02:01 PM (Hx5uv)

486

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2014 05:43 PM (SY2Kh)

 

Why did you leave out powder cocaine?

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 02:01 PM (m2CN7)

487 YOU think I oppose the legalization of pot because I don't want others doing what I don't like doing. In reality, I oppose the legalization of pot because I've lived in societies where it was legal, and they were horrible places.

Where?  I'm not aware of anyplace on Earth outside of Colorado where it's legal.

In countries like the Netherlands where it's decriminalized, it's still technically illegal.

In fact, it's not actually legal in Colorado, either. It's still a violation of Federal law.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2014 02:01 PM (SY2Kh)

488 No way the state should be banning trans fats or sports betting or prostitution either.

Posted by: steevy at January 07, 2014 02:02 PM (zqvg6)

489 I wish to be treated like a Free Citizen and Responsible Adult. Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:44 PM (/FnUH) That train has left the station. You'd've seen it leave, but the only lightbulbs on the platform are dim CFLs.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2014 02:02 PM (T0NGe)

490 However, once that theory hits the real-world, there are practical concerns, and until those practical concerns are addressed, I do not support legalization of pot. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 07, 2014 06:01 PM (PYAXX) Ditto

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2014 02:02 PM (t3UFN)

491 Now I wll say that in my yoots when I was "high" instead of driving fast I usually drove at 5MPH thinking I was going 95, but that aside, with increased use will come increased irresponsible use. YouÂ’re not alone. One of the way police catch pot smokers is by looking for the people driving extra carefully.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 07, 2014 02:02 PM (QF8uk)

492 451 ace at January 07, 2014 05:56 PM (/FnUH)

To me part of being a genuine libertarian was the notion of smaller government and personal responsibility as well as liberty.

It always seemed your preferences were along those lines as well, but I am conceding the loss.  Dede Jenteal agrees with Mary Katherine Ham "legalize it!" and I am certain that now that Ms Jenteal tastes liberty she'll demand more for the investors and business people of this great nation.

Or you know "not"...

This is a neat country we're in tobacco is being demonized, pot being glorified, and 32 oz drinks outlawed with Lt Work the First Consort wanting to be National Dietician.....

Someone take over my byline I can't find a consistent logic in the national fucking narrative anymore.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 02:02 PM (TE35l)

493 by peps account, we all have a vested interest in the diet and exercise habits of all fellow Americans. After all, "I'm on the hook for your stupidity" too. Hope you aren't getting too much fat, sugar, carbs, grains, etc. You better be getting enough exercise too. I get your point and all, but the answer isn't big statist/moralist intervention in my life. The answer is less government control, more liberty, and less statism.

Posted by: california red at January 07, 2014 02:02 PM (7jrCM)

494 Neither does not wearing a motorcycle helmet. Until your head hits the curb, and my taxes pay for your droolcups. Posted by: Gary Busey at January 07, 2014 06:01 PM (6TB1Z) ***** Ha!-- for a minute I was looking for the Ben Rothlesberger handle.

Posted by: Pot Bownie Bakers Union #66 at January 07, 2014 02:02 PM (RJMhd)

495 you nailed it ace. why can't people mind their own fucking business anymore? Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 06:00 PM (KHo8t) Hide posts from (KHo8t) I'd bet the last two human beings will try to kill each other. We keep talking about addiction, what about the addiction to having your fat grubbies in everyone else's business? That's been going on throughout history and doesn't seem to be waning.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith[/i] [/b] [/s] [/u] at January 07, 2014 02:02 PM (qyfb5)

496 you nailed it ace. why can't people mind their own f*****g business anymore? Posted by: X

If you haven't understood the argument to this point, you never will.

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 02:02 PM (6TB1Z)

497 --Since I'm not a doctrinaire libertarian, my take is simply that weed is similar to alcohol enough that it should be legally treated similarly (e.g., don't drive after smoking it). Posted by: logprof at January 07, 2014 05:41 PM (X3GkB) I don't think people properly consider just how many people are killed or die from alcohol each year. I know alcohol has killed a lot of people in my family, both from drunk drivers running into them to alcohol related deaths from drinking it. Something like 70,000 people per year from alcohol related deaths. 10,000 or so drunk driving deaths per year. I doubt it will be that bad for marijuana, but I suspect it will be worse in other ways such as lost productivity and encouraging addiction to harder drugs.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 02:03 PM (bb5+k)

498 Uruguay legalized production and sale of Weed last year. Of course as nations go, Uruguay has always been a sketchy 3rd World semi-socialist place. One year later----still a 3rd World sketchy backwater.

Posted by: Daybrother at January 07, 2014 02:03 PM (kmlM7)

499 482 People upthread do not want to answer CAC when he asks the same question.

Okay. I will.

Yes. I do. Because he's knowingly breaking the law which says he'll go to jail for doing that.

So can we please lock up illegal aliens BEFORE we lock up the potheads?

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 02:03 PM (5ikDv)

500 Why did you leave out powder cocaine?

Because without powder cocaine, there would be no strippers.

Also, powdered cocaine isn't as addictive as crack.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2014 02:03 PM (SY2Kh)

501 Furthermore, banning any good or service will inevitably lead to the establishment of a black market for that good or service. Later, all. God bless. :-)

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 07, 2014 02:04 PM (DhGW2)

502 420 The main thing to me is, at the end of the day that we are not a serious people. Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 05:51 PM (TE35l) ------------------------- Nailed it.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at January 07, 2014 02:04 PM (dfYL9)

503 Regarding the "gateway drug" aspect of all this: every single time I've ever smoked weed I had been drinking beforehand. So alcohol must be a gateway drug too, which means it should also be illegal, except we already tried that and it didn't work.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at January 07, 2014 02:04 PM (KSjsb)

504 >>>Ace at 117, spot on. (except for your spelling of stretch) I really hate the "I have to pay for your bad choices" argument. And I don't understand why those who use this line of argument don't see the inherent problems. thanks. I would guess they don't see the inherent problems because they don't want to. People do want to fuck with other people. They want to impose their own values on them. It's basic human nature-- it really is. We are bothered by Other Tribes' Odd Customs. I know for shit-sure that i am. I ain't gonna lie. When I see something weird, I don't like it. I have to breathe deeply and count to ten and remind myself "Not my business." So a lot of people are looking for some way to justify their own attempts to impose their values on others, while simultaneously arguing against Hostile Tribes' attempts to impose those other values on themselves. At some point you have to just chop the Gordian Knot and say "All of this attempt to prove one culture is superior to another, through the power of coercive law, is wrong-headed, and in the end detrimental to everyone."

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 02:04 PM (/FnUH)

505

I don't know any state where you go to prison with an amount of weed that is below a threshold that is set to reflect personal  use as opposed to intent to distribute. 

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 02:04 PM (m2CN7)

506 >>>Regarding the "gateway drug" aspect of all this: every single time I've ever smoked weed I had been drinking beforehand. So alcohol must be a gateway drug too, which means it should also be illegal, except we already tried that and it didn't work. yup.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 02:04 PM (/FnUH)

507 And then my friend just said to me: "Do you think I should be in jail?" I don't give a shit whether he should be in jail or not. But since current laws would put him there, I want this guy busting his ass to reduce the power of the federal government to help me get the shit that *I* want--like not making payments on some SSDI queen's Lexus. Decriminalize beforehand, and the potheads have no reason to stick with the fight toward freedom. Selfish? Yes.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 02:04 PM (V3kRK)

508 I'm angry that the GOP doesn't cut the debt, and I'll be pissed off that the Libertarians don't really give a shit about you know liberty but at least a lot of people will be giggling while I get to preparing. Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 05:41 PM (TE35l) The greatest form of oppression to us all is the seizing of our money to be used for things to which we object. But for Libertarians, POT is the number one issue.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 02:05 PM (bb5+k)

509 by peps account, we all have a vested interest in the diet and exercise habits of all fellow Americans. After all, "I'm on the hook for your stupidity" too. Hope you aren't getting too much fat, sugar, carbs, grains, etc. You better be getting enough exercise too.

I get your point and all, but the answer isn't big statist/moralist intervention in my life. The answer is less government control, more liberty, and less statism. Posted by: california red

I'm not sure you do, or you wouldn't have said what you did at the start.  You finished strong, though.

The answer is less government control, more liberty, and less statism.

Precisely.

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 02:05 PM (6TB1Z)

510
Neither does not wearing a motorcycle helmet. Until your head hits the curb, and my taxes pay for your droolcups.



This shit is an argument for no freedom at all.

Posted by: Typo Dynamofo at January 07, 2014 02:05 PM (FtCW+)

511 Again, what are the consequences? I mean, really? Everyone makes the pot < alcohol argument, but if we really did the pro and con tally I'm not sure how much of the cons would be that big of a deal to most people. It's just not that bad.

Posted by: MJ at January 07, 2014 02:05 PM (PRPp1)

512

Dude, it's 2 tacos for 99 cents!

 

Posted by: Mr. Jack Box at January 07, 2014 05:51 PM (DqlhY)

 

 

 

That's even better!  Whoa!!

Posted by: Count de Monet at January 07, 2014 02:05 PM (BAS5M)

513 Just because I can't prevent every leak, doesn't mean I tear down the dike. Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 05:41 PM (6TB1Z) Well said.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 02:05 PM (bb5+k)

514 476 X at January 07, 2014 06:00 PM (KHo8t)

BWQAHAHAHAHA "mind their own fucking business?"

What country is that that "legalizing pot" is building?

A country where IRS attacks your business for the wrong political views?

A country where I can't build a coal plant to power the economy?

A country where they are trying to obliterate the 1st, 2d, 4th, 5th and 10th amendments?

Look I get it "mind your own business" I wish we had started with something beyond how we escape reality out of the gate eh?

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 02:05 PM (TE35l)

515 And yes, I am sick of everyone who would control anyone else, whether it's you or obama, or a Leftist Moral Scold or a Rightist Moral Scold.

I am, yes, a Libertarian.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:56 PM (/FnUH)


although i'm not a libertarian, i don't believe or a staunch republican, and hiss at dems..

I like this post, and it's not even as much about the moral scold , although that's a  large part,  it's about limiting the coercive govts influence in our personal lives or destiny, IF someone commits a crime while high , sure bust them for the crime. although besides dealers and cartels are srs crimes committed by a pot head? because of pot?

and those buying with ebt cards who lightened the restrictions? can cigs be bought with ebt cards?

(honestly don't know)

Posted by: willow at January 07, 2014 02:05 PM (nqBYe)

516 Again-- where are casual pot smokers being thrown in jail!?

Posted by: Pot Brownie Bakers Union #66 at January 07, 2014 02:05 PM (RJMhd)

517 People are worrying too much about things that are going to happen anyway. Drug use is a response to something else. People don't get high first and then ruin their lives or become depressed. They are depressed or ruin their lives and _then_ get high. If you want to come hang out with me and help me with my issues, step up, otherwise .... weed.

Posted by: Meekle at January 07, 2014 02:06 PM (kqHcW)

518 Okay. I will. Yes. I do. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 07, 2014 06:01 PM (PYAXX) Finally, an honest answer.

Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 02:06 PM (DqlhY)

519 >>>I don't know any state where you go to prison with an amount of weed that is below a threshold that is set to reflect personal use as opposed to intent to distribute. Let's be real about this: the "personal use" amount is very, very low. Like one or two or three personal uses. What if you don't feel like running out to a pot-dealer (and every transaction puts you in jeopardy of arrest) every week, and want to buy a month's worth? Then you have enough that the state would presume "intent to distribute." It's crazy, anyway. We're sitting here making distinctions between USING marijuana and selling it. Well, if the state isn't going to enforce anti-use laws, it shouldn't enforce anti-sales laws, either. It's already conceded the argument.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 02:07 PM (/FnUH)

520 Smoking pot has gone from immoral to not immoral. Living together from immoral to not immoral. Gay Stuff from immoral to immoral, but just barely (50-47). Meanwhile... Abortion went from not immoral to immoral in 25 years. Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 05:42 PM (DqlhY) Evidence that we are in decline, from my perspective. Nature decides what's is actually immoral. People simply follow fads till nature corrects them.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 02:07 PM (bb5+k)

521 The fact that this country is shit right now should not cause us to argue to make it shittier. We should be fighting to make it better and freer, not worse and less free. In order to make it better and freer, we need to make sure that everyfuckingbody understands that the country is shit right now. Otherwise, making it less shitty for certain segments lowers their give-a-shit factor and removes them from the battle.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 02:07 PM (V3kRK)

522 Ace at 117, spot on. (except for your spelling of stretch) I really hate the "I have to pay for your bad choices" argument. And I don't understand why those who use this line of argument don't see the inherent problems.

thanks. I would guess they don't see the inherent problems because they don't want to.

Don't condescend, Ace.  We see the inherent problems.  We see your way as a greater threat.

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 02:07 PM (6TB1Z)

523 People do want to fuck with other people.
-
The plural of man is war.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 07, 2014 02:07 PM (Hx5uv)

524 So can we please lock up illegal aliens BEFORE we lock up the potheads? You'll get no objection on that from *me*

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 07, 2014 02:07 PM (PYAXX)

525 Until 1905 cocaine was legal, IIRC. You could give your kids coca syrup. Sherlock Holmes did it. Cocaine addiction and use caused problems so it became illegal. Gangs took over and we ended up with Griselda Blanco in Florida in 1980. So if the options are Sherlock Holmes or Griselda Blanco, the answer is elementary. But cocaine is still dangerous and I discourage anyone from using it. Don't sell all your shit and rob your parents.

Posted by: Beagle at January 07, 2014 02:07 PM (sOtz/)

526 I've had to go to google for bill o'riley and falafel, THC and sea change which included a reference to some rock guy, and yet I still don't understand the connection....there is way too much researching and math going on here. Stop it!!!

Posted by: Hawk lurking at January 07, 2014 02:07 PM (CYS6Q)

527 >> THC is a mind altering drug and legalizing it without first spelling out when, where, and how it can be used is a recipe for disaster
 
NGU, spinning in a circle is mind altering. Hyperventilating is mind altering. Getting angry is mind altering. Holding your breath until you pass out is mind altering.

Posted by: GnuBreed at January 07, 2014 02:07 PM (wNF3N)

528 508 D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 06:05 PM (bb5+k)

We live in a nation where NSA refuses to deny they are spying on our Congress for Obama....

and Mary Katherine Ham is ramped up for pot...

the entire thing shows we are an unserious people in need of the corrections that will come.

So be an ant not a grasshopper and go long on decline

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 02:07 PM (TE35l)

529 Again, what are the consequences? I mean, really? Everyone makes the pot is less than alcohol argument but if we actually put together a pro vs. con list I'm not sure the cons would be that bad. Legalize it so that demotards can't afford it. That goes on the 'pro' side.

Posted by: MJ at January 07, 2014 02:08 PM (PRPp1)

530 444 You totally left out that he did it to Juan Williams too. I am going to look at Juan Williams getting chewed out by O'Reilly differently in the future and hope he finally snaps and chokes Bill.

Posted by: Meekle at January 07, 2014 05:54 PM (kqHcW)

Given that both of them are stupid for different reasons (or different for stupid reason?  eh...) that would be not just epic, but a pinnacle of TV commentary.

Posted by: tangonine at January 07, 2014 02:08 PM (x3YFz)

531 I was going to go smoke my tobacco pipe in the hot tub and contemplate the waning sunlight on a cold winter's day after reading the Luntz DOOM thread.

But I can't.

Client meeting in a bit. Needs an Affidavit of Heirship.

Work.
Sheesh.

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 07, 2014 02:08 PM (VjL9S)

532 Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 06:06 PM (DqlhY) Sorry. I was in a meeting. And now I'm going home.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 07, 2014 02:08 PM (PYAXX)

533 518 Okay. I will. Yes. I do. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 07, 2014 06:01 PM (PYAXX) Finally, an honest answer. Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 06:06 PM (DqlhY) Ya but it's a dishonest question. So clearly, I should be jailed, right? Where would you be jailed for casual pot smoking? You live in Cali right? That's not happening here.

Posted by: Pot Brownie Bakers Union #66 at January 07, 2014 02:08 PM (RJMhd)

534 I'd bet the last two human beings will try to kill each other. Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith Ever see that scifi movie about the last three people on Earth? Two guys and a girl. The girl dumps the first guy for the second and the first saves them both by killing himself with a tanker truck. Awesome flick. English I think. Wish I could remember the name. The good earth or something.

Posted by: Daybrother at January 07, 2014 02:09 PM (kexlD)

535 Decriminalization requires a change. Why work on behalf of potheads for this change when there are so many other changes that need to happen that the potheads won't give a rat's ass about once they get theirs?

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 02:09 PM (V3kRK)

536 @512 Ever notice how Taco Bell is pushing the stoner, we're open late plan with specials at night?

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 07, 2014 02:09 PM (0FSuD)

537 Obviously I don't think CAC should go to jail for his crimes. For some of his thoughts, perhaps. But not his deeds.

Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 02:09 PM (cQ2Q9)

538 >>>I don't give a shit whether he should be in jail or not. But since current laws would put him there, I want this guy busting his ass to reduce the power of the federal government to help me get the shit that *I* want--like not making payments on some SSDI queen's Lexus. Decriminalize beforehand, and the potheads have no reason to stick with the fight toward freedom. Selfish? Yes. ... my friend is a libertarian/conservative who despises Obama and the progressives. So he's involved in the fight. Your assumption that everyone who smokes pot is "on the side of the statists" is wrong.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 02:09 PM (/FnUH)

539 And I really don't think casual pot smokers were being "thrown behind bars" in Colorado before the law.

Posted by: Pot Brownie Bakers Union #66 at January 07, 2014 02:10 PM (RJMhd)

540 498 - uraguay's legalization came in December 2013. Just happened.

Posted by: california red at January 07, 2014 02:10 PM (7jrCM)

541 I'd bet the last two human beings will try to kill each other.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith

only if you steal my lotion or chocolate.

Posted by: willow at January 07, 2014 02:11 PM (nqBYe)

542 >>>Eh, I'm ambivalent on this. I'd much rather fight for incandescents. I actually use those. This issue is truly a waste of time. it's all the same fight. It's the fight of people Who Wish To Be Left Alone against People Who Want to Control You Because They Know Better. Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 05:44 PM (/FnUH) I want to point out that I read an article the other day (Instapundit I think) which asserted that lightbulbs were banned not for the reasons advanced, but because the manufactures of them made low profits and wanted them discontinued in such a way that no competition would come in and undercut their more expensive replacements. Apparently companies like GE think they will make more money on the LED lamps, and so they lobbied to get their low profit product lines made illegal so as to prevent competition for their higher priced new products. Sounded plausible to me. Crony Capitalism. It's what's for future.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 02:11 PM (bb5+k)

543 >>>Well, if the state isn't going to enforce anti-use laws, it shouldn't enforce anti-sales laws, either. It's already conceded the argument.


No it hasn't. A distinction has simply been made between offenses. Same as you have between prostitute and pimp.

Posted by: Typo Dynamofo at January 07, 2014 02:11 PM (FtCW+)

544 So he's involved in the fight. Your assumption that everyone who smokes pot is "on the side of the statists" is wrong. Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 06:09 PM (/FnUH) True dat. Coke fueled a lot of conservative work in the 80's. I read about it.

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 07, 2014 02:11 PM (0FSuD)

545 >>>Until 1905 cocaine was legal, IIRC. You could give your kids coca syrup. Sherlock Holmes did it. Cocaine addiction and use caused problems so it became illegal. Gangs took over and we ended up with Griselda Blanco in Florida in 1980. Andrew Stuttaford, formerly of NRO, the Brit, once said to me, "I'm all in favor of Victorian morality -- cocaine and morphine were legal, prostitution was legal, and you could carry a gun in London without a second glance."

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 02:11 PM (/FnUH)

546 Smoking anything is stupid. STUPID. Your lungs don't work well full of insoluble particulate matter. Pot is harmful when used excessively or by those with mental health issues. Just as is alcohol. For most people most of the time it's a non-issue. Just eat it, don't smoke it. And keep it to yourselves, I'm not interested in your horseshit - I have enough of my own. We need a roadside test for pot impaired drivers, although a properly performed and documented field sobriety test is good enough from a clinical standpoint. I hate drugs HATE THEM. But if you want to mainline heroin in your rectal veins, knock yourself out. Just don't impact me and mine when you do. Don't want to ride a motorcycle with a helmet? Fine. Don't make me pay for your ICU bill and ventilator. In fact, if you are a Taker, just fuck off. Period. A couple other observations: - AT LEAST 25-30% of the new pregnancies I see return a positive drug screen. Lots of babies made while smokin weed. I'd estimate about half are terminated. - Don't let babies smoke weed. Just put the bong water in their bottle.

Posted by: OG Celtic-American at January 07, 2014 02:11 PM (vHRtU)

547 What if you don't feel like running out to a pot-dealer (and every transaction puts you in jeopardy of arrest) every week, and want to buy a month's worth?

Then you have enough that the state would presume "intent to distribute."

It's crazy, anyway. We're sitting here making distinctions between USING marijuana and selling it.

Well, if the state isn't going to enforce anti-use laws, it shouldn't enforce anti-sales laws, either. It's already conceded the argument.



Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 06:07 PM (/FnUH)

 

Now its a matter of convenience?  Good god man.

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 02:11 PM (m2CN7)

548 I want freedom. I am a deist. I smoke weed (way too often). I am a potential enemy of the state.

Posted by: Meekle at January 07, 2014 02:11 PM (kqHcW)

549 Hopefully, we'll soon be able to buy ace recommended weed on Amazon.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 07, 2014 02:12 PM (DpEwG)

550 I also work and pay (lots of) taxes.

Posted by: Meekle at January 07, 2014 02:12 PM (kqHcW)

551 But since current laws would put him there, ***** Really? Casual pot smokers are being put in prison in California--where CAC lives? The prisons are pretty damn full here.

Posted by: Pot Brownie Bakers Union #66 at January 07, 2014 02:12 PM (RJMhd)

552

Well, if the state isn't going to enforce anti-use laws, it shouldn't enforce anti-sales laws, either. It's already conceded the argument.
Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 06:07 PM (/FnUH)

I can't produce whiskey and sell it.  

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 02:12 PM (m2CN7)

553 Hey, when's the football thread going to be up, isn't there a big game tonight? Oh, wait.

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 07, 2014 02:13 PM (0FSuD)

554 And I really don't think casual pot smokers were being "thrown behind bars" in Colorado before the law.
-
We would occasionally send people to prison for smoking pot although the only in incidents that I personally know about were where people violated probation by smoking pot. I think that will continue. Many judges make no alcohol and no pot an condition of probation. Violate it and it's slammer time.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 07, 2014 02:13 PM (Hx5uv)

555 The valets of Denver have to be pretty happy right about now...detail shops, too.

Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 02:13 PM (cQ2Q9)

556 >>>People do want to fuck with other people. - The plural of man is war. ... HAH!

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 02:14 PM (/FnUH)

557 It shouldn't be elective, sending people to jail. It shouldn't be prosecutorial or judicial discretion.

Posted by: Meekle at January 07, 2014 02:14 PM (kqHcW)

558 446 Beagle at January 07, 2014 05:55 PM (sOtz/)

I missed your reply Beagle Thanks,

yeah to me energy freedom was the huge battle because with it we could build an economy to bear folly...

My mom and dad were/are drunks....

it was understood by his era (1942) that you worked your ass off to get to party on friday night...

people now think you can vote yourself a party...

"okay"...not what I wanted, not my choice but hey the potheads can show me a roaring economy now.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 02:14 PM (TE35l)

559 BTW, if you think something is "dangerous", I recommend not flippantly referring to it as a "mild hallucinogen" just five days earlier: http://bit.ly/1cWZSZ6 "mild hallucinogen" is FAR more accurate than "dangerous".

Posted by: deadrody at January 07, 2014 02:14 PM (+Dpo7)

560 So he's involved in the fight. Your assumption that everyone who smokes pot is "on the side of the statists" is wrong. Can you please assure me that *all* the other potheads who would *fight* for decriminalization would continue to fight for general freedom once that objective is achieved? I do not ("cannot" is probably a better word) dispute that your friend is in it for the long haul, but I've known [other] potheads, and there is no way they'd lift a finger for what *I* want after they get theirs. In fact, I'd bet most of them would fight tooth-and-nail for the free Doritos they get with their EBT cards funded out of the taxes I pay.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 02:14 PM (V3kRK)

561 399
There are plenty of things that need fixing.
...

As soon as the potheads get their pet freedom, they will abandon the rest of the fight. If there's one thing you can rely on a pothead for, it's unreliability.


This

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 02:14 PM (5ikDv)

562 i'd rather go after leadership that steals earnings .

Posted by: willow at January 07, 2014 02:14 PM (nqBYe)

563 No, we're not interested in locking up casual pot smokers! Unless they buy eenough to smoke out more than once. That's just crazy. You should want to go see your dealer every single time you feel like a smoke! It's just like how you have to go to.a bar or liquor store every single time you want alcohol, and you can only purchase a six-pack to take home. We know how much you can handle!

Posted by: Disingenuous Statists at January 07, 2014 02:15 PM (v/2zq)

564 552 polynikes at January 07, 2014 06:12 PM (m2CN7)

Sure you can.....

//Whiskey Rebls v Revenooers for 231 years now

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 02:15 PM (TE35l)

565 516 Again--

where are casual pot smokers being thrown in jail!?

Posted by: Pot Brownie Bakers Union #66
==============
Same place where conservatives have passed laws to prevent rape and incest victims from getting abortions.

As to Ace's "it's a hassle to have to get more every three bowls."
You know, here in TX, if you buy too much liquor and beer, the TABC will bust you for bootlegging? Yeah. I can only buy so much at a time, not a year's supply.

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 07, 2014 02:16 PM (VjL9S)

566 “Hey, my mind isn’t jelly. I stop using it over the summer and don’t care. They lied to me about pot. Maybe they lied to me about cocaine, too.” Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 07, 2014 05:47 PM (QF8uk) Another possibility is that people have differing reactions to drugs. There are physiological differences in people. Some people can smoke crack and put it down, others can smoke it once and are addicted from then on. Same with alcohol. What you had been told may be true of some, and luckily you weren't one of them.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 02:16 PM (bb5+k)

567 And--I think there are many measures short of "prison" --but you guys painted everyone into that extreme position without them saying that. And then--you called them "dishonest" for resisting the paintbrush. Dudes!

Posted by: Pot Brownie Bakers Union #66 at January 07, 2014 02:16 PM (RJMhd)

568 In countries like the Netherlands where it's decriminalized, it's still technically illegal. My understanding is that it's only legal in the coffee houses. That is a very strict restriction on its possession and use and a far cry from what Colorado is doing.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2014 02:16 PM (T0NGe)

569 Everybody who has a good dealer could care less... Legalization is just a way of hurting all the small-scale growers that exist _everywhere_. I assume somewhere there's a 'weed cartel' and they don't like low prices due to plentiful availability (it is after all, a plant).

Posted by: Meekle at January 07, 2014 02:16 PM (kqHcW)

570 Hopefully, we'll soon be able to buy ace recommended weed on Amazon. There already is 'designer' pot for sale on Amazon. Kids are using it, getting f^cked up, and ending up in the ER's of hospitals all over the country. Bing/Google/Wiki 'JWH' for details

Posted by: Mr. Walter White [/i] at January 07, 2014 02:17 PM (RqqAn)

571 I'd say you all have beat this horse to death. At LEAST twice. Have I talked to you about Herba Life?

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 07, 2014 02:18 PM (0FSuD)

572 545 ace at January 07, 2014 06:11 PM (/FnUH)

Forgive me if I'd preferred the order be different without assurance of all 3 dear man.


Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 02:18 PM (TE35l)

573 540 498 - uraguay's legalization came in December 2013. Just happened. Posted by: california red --------- Thank you. Portugal: 12 Years after decriminalization of virtually all drugs for personal use. http://tinyurl.com/cpq8l2p

Posted by: Daybrother at January 07, 2014 02:18 PM (6npsP)

574

 Posted by: Disingenuous Statists at January 07, 2014 06:15 PM (v/2zq)

 

Your comparison to alcohol is like gay rights  comparison to civil rights.  

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 02:18 PM (m2CN7)

575 Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 06:04 PM (/FnUH) I've said it once and I'll say it again: Give me a practical way to handle downstream effects and I don't give a shit. So for EtOH we have the Breathalyzer. Not perfect but it works close enough. Now setting aside the 4th amendment problems with checkpoints (let's deal only with cases of real probably cause and/or warrants) we can breathalyses someone, and adjudicate accordingly. Ditto if I think you're drunk on the job. THC tests simply aren't practical. They suck. Full stop. I'm willing to bet any use of them in such a way would fail court scrutiny.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 07, 2014 02:18 PM (GaqMa)

576 Casual pot smokers are being put in prison in California--where CAC lives? The prisons are pretty damn full here. Yes, and thatÂ’s why. The prison guards union here loves it some marijuana prohibition and mandatory minimum laws. Pot smokers are the easiest people in the world to make overtime on.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 07, 2014 02:18 PM (QF8uk)

577 554 And I really don't think casual pot smokers were being "thrown behind bars" in Colorado before the law. - We would occasionally send people to prison for smoking pot although the only in incidents that I personally know about were where people violated probation by smoking pot. I think that will continue. Many judges make no alcohol and no pot an condition of probation. Violate it and it's slammer time. Posted by: WalrusRex at January 07, 2014 06:13 PM (Hx5uv) ******** Thanks. I suspect there was also--other criminal activity in the portfolio of the defendant. Just a hunch.

Posted by: Pot Brownie Bakers Union #66 at January 07, 2014 02:18 PM (RJMhd)

578 people might not be thrown in jail for weed, but think of the people that are forced into the shadows. Otherwise law abiding people that have this 'skeleton' in their closet. Someone who might otherwise contribute to society in a meaningful way. For example, One might volunteer as a reserve fire fighter. But since he is a criminal for partaking in a little weed, he does not. Same with running for a local council seat. I know many of you will assume that people who smoke should stay in the shadows, but I know many decent people that have been criminalized by this stupid prohibition. And for what it is worth, I despise alcohol. I think it is ruinous and detrimental to society. It makes people stupid. It makes people lazy. It makes people violent. It causes unemployment and increases government entitlement spending. It causes disease and death. Overall, we would be better off without alcohol. But I respect your right to chose how you want to live your life and I would never advocate for the government to prohibit your from it. Because I believe in individual liberty and personal choice so long as it does not infringe on my rights.

Posted by: california red at January 07, 2014 02:18 PM (7jrCM)

579 >>>516 Again-- where are casual pot smokers being thrown in jail!? Posted by: Pot Brownie Bakers Union #66 anywhere a cop feels like it, except WA and CO. >>>Really? Casual pot smokers are being put in prison in California--where CAC lives? The prisons are pretty damn full here. Posted by: Pot Brownie Bakers Union #6 really dumbass.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 02:19 PM (KHo8t)

580 Lidsmoke!!!

Posted by: 1974 guy up in a tree at January 07, 2014 02:19 PM (wAQA5)

581 My understanding is that it's only legal in the coffee houses. That is a very strict restriction on its possession and use and a far cry from what Colorado is doing.

Nope.  Illegal but not enforced.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2014 02:19 PM (SY2Kh)

582 418 Yeah, depending on the ethnic group we have strong evidence we actually evolved to process alcohol, just like we evolved to drink milk. And, just like with milk, those genes are not uniformly distributed among the planet's ethnic groups. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 07, 2014 05:50 PM (ZPrif) Exactly what I said above, just more eloquent.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 02:19 PM (bb5+k)

583 >>>Now its a matter of convenience? Good god man. indeed. Why do you presume it is your right and responsibility to fuck with people's personal habits? We can all agree on things like DUI raps for driving while impaired due to marijuana -- things which actually might affect you. But you wish a general authority to show your disapproval of pot through coercive law. Why? Why is it important to you? I swear to you I don't like pot. I've said so a thousand times. Tried it a dozen times in college and a few years thereafter. Never liked it. Kept trying it because people were so insistent that it was awesome. Figured maybe I had to be in the right mood. (Also, I was always off-my-ass drunk when I tried it... once again suggesting that alcohol is the real "gateway drug.") I do not approve of stoners. I don't like them. I find their "culture" to be of a cargo cult nature. Most stoners contribute little to society, and are frankly uninteresting human beings. A bad stoner is like a mellow monkey. A useless pleasure-seeking eat-and-shit-and-sleep machine. (Present company excepted, of course.) I share you distaste for both pot and pot-heads. I really do. I am not just saying that to aid in an argument. You can read my old archives; I have knocked potheads dozens of dozens of times. But over the course of the last two years, I have began asking myself: Why should I impose this particular disapproval (maybe even bigotry) through force of law, through threat of prison? What is behind that, other than simple distaste?

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 02:19 PM (/FnUH)

584 I see pot as what the state gives you in exchange for your freedoms. But I get ace's point. Ultimately, I'm going to take the coward's way out and say it should be up to the states. Issues like this are impossible for 300 million to come to a consensus on.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 07, 2014 02:19 PM (qad38)

585 Mississippi law on pot possession:
 
Up to 30 grams. Penalties include a fine of $100 to $250. Subsequent convictions of this type within a two-year period are punished with a $250 fine, and between five and 60 days in jail, in addition to participation in a mandatory drug education program. A third or subsequent conviction is punished with a fine between $250 and $500, and between five days and six months in jail. (Miss. Ann. Code § 41-29-139(c)(2)(A).)
 
As you can see, you can be locked up for simple possession here.

Posted by: GnuBreed at January 07, 2014 02:19 PM (wNF3N)

586 Can I sign a waiver? A waiver that says I donÂ’t want any TAXPAYER FUNDS used to help me in anyway if I injure myself due to my own choices? Including eating the wrong food or not getting enough exercise or not wearing a seatbelt or a bike helmet or having too much/too little sex or getting into a relationship with a violent person or walking on the ice wearing a pair of shoes with insufficient tread or not paying close enough attention while chopping an onion or swimming after eating a large meal or reading in dim light or sitting too close to the television or tugging on SupermanÂ’s cape. Where do I sign?

Posted by: grandmalcaesar at January 07, 2014 02:20 PM (yrohn)

587 Weed is not taxed and cheeper and moar fun when its illegal. Lefties on the wrong side again. Dumbasses. BIRM.



Posted by: dananjcon at January 07, 2014 04:52 PM (wmU4G)

Bingo! The same situation obtains in Canada. You have your lefties and soi-disant Libertarians blathering about how important it is to have pot legalized and taxed, and they are all about how governments' coffers will overflow once said legalization is implemented. I point out to them, "Hey, assholes, you can get all the pot you want right now, and you can get it pretty cheap, and unless you are downright stupid about it, chances are you will never see the inside of a jail cell for having it. But just you wait! Once the governments get addicted to the revenue from legal pot, they will crank and crank up the price, and home growers will feel the full wrath of the law, because now they are stealing revenue from Government, and Government hates that."



Never fails to fall upon deaf ears. Economics, and human nature, how do[/i} they work?

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at January 07, 2014 02:20 PM (8Fl6F)

588 >>>>And if you actually think pot and alcohol are inherently "dangerous" (LOL) then I want to see actual evidence of that fact, not polls and not anecdotes.>>>>

Among heavy users, lung capacity is severely impacted. In males THC lowers testosterone. Oral cancers appear to be linked to pot use, because they're rare in people under the age of sixty, even among cigarette smokers and drinkers. They're more common in pot users.

Pot users have a higher (whoops) incidence of premature death than non-pot users, and there's an association between pot use and schizophrenia.

The problem is that in-depth medical studies haven't been made. But how could inhaling burning, tar-heavy smoke that changes the chemistry of your brain and endocrine system be bad for you?

http://tinyurl.com/m5fha96

Posted by: Tacky Adhesive at January 07, 2014 02:20 PM (+yhVL)

589 Why should I impose this particular disapproval (maybe even bigotry) through force of law, through threat of prison?

What is behind that, other than simple distaste?

My money.

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 02:21 PM (6TB1Z)

590 I'll be okay with pot being legal the moment I'm given some kind of assurance that I won't be on the hook for their medical bills and living expenses. The very fact that it is the FSA most in favor of legalizing weed is enough reason for me to be against it. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 07, 2014 05:52 PM (PYAXX) My position as well.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 02:21 PM (bb5+k)

591 In Texas, 2 ounces or less is a class b misdemeanor which is one level above a traffic ticket.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 07, 2014 02:21 PM (DpEwG)

592 What you had been told may be true of some, and luckily you weren't one of them. Actually, I wasnÂ’t one of them. I never did end up using marijuana in college. My friends would, and IÂ’d leave the room and go to sleep. Probably should have, though. Every single one of them is doing better than me right now, financially. (Not that IÂ’m doing poorly.)

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 07, 2014 02:21 PM (QF8uk)

593 Can I sign a waiver? A waiver that says I donÂ’t want any TAXPAYER FUNDS used to help me in anyway if I injure myself due to my own choices? Including eating the wrong food or not getting enough exercise or not wearing a seatbelt or a bike helmet or having too much/too little sex or getting into a relationship with a violent person or walking on the ice wearing a pair of shoes with insufficient tread or not paying close enough attention while chopping an onion or swimming after eating a large meal or reading in dim light or sitting too close to the television or tugging on SupermanÂ’s cape. Where do I sign?

Not in Obama's America.

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 02:22 PM (6TB1Z)

594 >> Otherwise law abiding people that have this 'skeleton' in their closet. This is the truth. The stoner-boners would suck with or without the weed. I merely have a "weed thing".

Posted by: Meekle at January 07, 2014 02:22 PM (kqHcW)

595 Violate it and it's slammer time.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 07, 2014 06:13 PM (Hx5uv)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCpCn0l4Wo

Clicky.

I wouldn't click it.

You're better off not clicking it.

You're going to so click it.



Posted by: tangonine at January 07, 2014 02:22 PM (x3YFz)

596 Was this PPP survey done in Austin, TX perchance?

Posted by: Count de Monet at January 07, 2014 02:22 PM (BAS5M)

597 The "legal" pot dealers will have a bad new issue in about 5 years when the Trial Lawyers start going after them the way they did against the Tobacco companies.  Some studies have Pot at double the cancer risk of Tobacco and others show drops in male fertility.  These guys don't have deep pockets for lawyer fees also, so the litigation will be swift and very painful.   It won't be the fact that it is against fed law that will put them out of business, but the fact their is no possible way to not go bankrupt due to litigation.

Posted by: dmandman at January 07, 2014 02:23 PM (nOklw)

598 Back when I used to be around people who smoked weed, the good dealers would do home delivery.

What kind of asshole dealer are you all dealing with that treats you like a beggar and makes you go to him?

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 07, 2014 02:23 PM (VjL9S)

599 583 ace at January 07, 2014 06:19 PM (/FnUH)

Proper prioritization, but since obviously those of us who placed economic liberty and the reduction of the welfare state lost to "let it all hang out" I will take my lumps...

I still don't understand why *my* preferred highs are still taboo now that Sensimilia MAN got his cape rhetorically speaking...

I'll go one further than you Ace... 3 bowl limit?

Hell no the Government ought to give the poor a free pound a week and ship it right to the door.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 02:24 PM (TE35l)

600 585 Mississippi law on pot possession: Up to 30 grams. Penalties include a fine of $100 to $250. Subsequent convictions of this type within a two-year period are punished with a $250 fine, and between five and 60 days in jail, in addition to participation in a mandatory drug education program. A third or subsequent conviction is punished with a fine between $250 and $500, and between five days and six months in jail. (Miss. Ann. Code § 41-29-139(c)(2)(A).) As you can see, you can be locked up for simple possession here. Posted by: GnuBreed at January 07, 2014 06:19 PM (wNF3N) ******* Some wacko Libertarian might cry-- Long Live Federalism and States Rights!! Looks like repeat offenders and then it is a contempt of court issue at play too. Since were freeballing it now. Speaking of what CAC should be punished for-- calling PA red--that should be a noodle spanking at least. I'm off to go eat something-- this thread is giving me the munchies.

Posted by: Pot Brownie Bakers Union #66 at January 07, 2014 02:24 PM (RJMhd)

601 Damn--nicely played. So you read your Plato. Posted by: Pot Bownie Bakers Union #66 at January 07, 2014 05:53 PM (RJMhd) Actually I worked that out myself by pondering China's history with opium. Drug addiction destroyed an Emperor form of government that lasted over a thousand years. You can't govern a country that cannot be governed.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 02:24 PM (bb5+k)

602 I am curious to see how Colorado handles professional licenses and pot. Can physicians now smoke weed? Cops? Airline pilots? 8-hour rule like with booze? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: OG Celtic-American at January 07, 2014 02:24 PM (vHRtU)

603 Flatbush Joe, every time this comes up, you post your bit about different ethnic groups handling alcohol/drugs differently, and it always puzzles me. Of course genes, including those tending toward addiction, run in families and families and in ethnic groups, but what's your point re: legalization? Do you think substances should be legal for some groups and not others?

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at January 07, 2014 02:24 PM (v/2zq)

604 As you can see, you can be locked up for simple possession here.

Posted by: GnuBreed at January 07, 2014 06:19 PM (wNF3N)

 

No you can be locked up for repeated offenses of a misdemeanor.  You can be locked up for traffic tickets also.    

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 02:24 PM (m2CN7)

605 Posted by: tangonine at January 07, 2014 06:22 PM (x3YFz)

I hate you.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 07, 2014 02:25 PM (QFxY5)

606 Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 06:24 PM (TE35l) My wife said "why should I care? I never want to do pot, even if they legalize it." I told her: "All things legal will be mandatory." Just wait, the stoners want us all to celebrate them.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 07, 2014 02:25 PM (GaqMa)

607 We need a roadside test for pot impaired drivers, although a properly performed and documented field sobriety test is good enough from a clinical standpoint. Such a test doesn't exist. Does. Not. Exist. There is no test for being high. As to "although a properly performed and documented field sobriety test is good enough from a clinical standpoint.", we just had a thread below about the overreaching police state. In this very thread arguments about how arbitrary police can be with prosecuting pot users. And yet you want to give police, basically, carte blanche to throw your ass in jail because you *seem* high? At least with an alcohol field sobriety test, I can say "bullshit, give me the breath test".

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2014 02:26 PM (T0NGe)

608 Why don't the Tobacco Companies go after the Native Americans?

Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 02:26 PM (cQ2Q9)

609 597 dmandman at January 07, 2014 06:23 PM (nOklw)

Heh no they won't...remember they are directly licensed and empowered by the state to sell the miracle weed...

you know the THC impregnated noxious carcinogenic smoke that should be legal as opposed to that tobacco smoke that should be demonized and made a scarlet letter...?

The legal attack on above the board pot is why there will still be cartels selling it under the table...

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 02:26 PM (TE35l)

610 All of you know someone that smokes pot regularly. He or she might even be a normal person, with a good job. Posted by: MJ at January 07, 2014 05:53 PM (PRPp1) I know several people who smoke pot regularly. They get government checks. Some on Welfare, some on retirement or disability income.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 02:26 PM (bb5+k)

611 607 I thought there was a new cheek swab test for marijuana. No?

Posted by: grandmalcaesar at January 07, 2014 02:27 PM (yrohn)

612
Such a test doesn't exist.

Does. Not. Exist.

There is no test for being high.

pfffft.  Clearly you are unfamiliar with the "brownie waved in the perp's face" test.

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 02:27 PM (6TB1Z)

613 I'll bring it up again to the pro pot crowd.    Why not legalize powder cocaine? 

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 02:27 PM (m2CN7)

614 606 tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 07, 2014 06:25 PM (GaqMa)

Oh Bike *I know* they will lobby to get pre-employment drug screening yanked, and they will insist that since pot is legal and you can't PROVE I am high you can't fire me.....

It'll be great....I plan on going to Church a lot more.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 02:28 PM (TE35l)

615 605 Posted by: tangonine at January 07, 2014 06:22 PM (x3YFz)

I hate you.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 07, 2014 06:25 PM (QFxY5)

I understand.

But it was still kinda fun, right?

Posted by: tangonine at January 07, 2014 02:28 PM (x3YFz)

616 Smoking a lot of pot, WILL give you man boobs.

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 07, 2014 02:28 PM (0FSuD)

617 608 Why don't the Tobacco Companies go after the Native Americans?
=======
Firewater wiped 'em out already. They've nothing left to take.

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 07, 2014 02:28 PM (VjL9S)

618 >>>Such a test doesn't exist. Does. Not. Exist. There is no test for being high. ... nonsense, for 50-60 years, before the advent of the blood alcohol test, cops routinely assessed drivers' intoxication using field sobriety tests. Then they testified to that in court. Juries determined who they thought was telling the truth. The fact that someone has THC in his blood AND a cop says 'He seemed high, he smelled of marijuana smoke, he was weaving and driving 10 miles under the limit" will get people convicted 80% of the time.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 02:28 PM (/FnUH)

619 my friend is a libertarian/conservative who despises Obama and the progressives. So he's involved in the fight. Your assumption that everyone who smokes pot is "on the side of the statists" is wrong.
Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 06:09 PM (/FnUH)

I haven't smoked in quite a while, but there seems to be an assumption among the prohibitionists that there are no casual users and everybody who smokes does it all day, every day, in their mom's basement collecting welfare. I know one guy who smokes everyday because he claims it helps his lyme disease, but he also owns a house and has a steady job that pays well. But most of the people I know who smoke it do it once in a while on a weekend, including a married couple who both own businesses and are libertarian-leaning Republicans.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at January 07, 2014 02:29 PM (KSjsb)

620 Injuins selling cigs tax free from their reservations in NY state.

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 07, 2014 02:29 PM (0FSuD)

621 I don't want my life to be endangered due to prosecutorial discretion. We are allowing too many de-facto prohibitions because "they usually don't prosecute".

Posted by: Meekle at January 07, 2014 02:29 PM (kqHcW)

622 I hated O'Reilly before it was cool.

Posted by: Echo Whiskey at January 07, 2014 02:29 PM (yyko3)

623 What is behind that, other than simple distaste? You're not imposing jack shit on anyone. The status quo is imposing it. The actions available to you right now are: 1. Get on the decriminalization train 2. Say, "Fuck it!" and explain to the potheads that getting what *you* want in terms of a move toward personal freedom will get them what they want Once our fathers' fathers' fathers started down that collectivist path, we all became each others' pawns.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 02:30 PM (V3kRK)

624 The fact that someone has THC in his blood AND a cop says 'He seemed high, he smelled of marijuana smoke, he was weaving and driving 10 miles under the limit" will get people convicted 80% of the time.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 06:28 PM (/FnUH)

 

They would have to have the worse attorney ever. 

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 02:30 PM (m2CN7)

625 Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2014 06:26 PM (T0NGe) Indeed. In fact, I have balance problems related to bad knees. Don't affect my driving at all, but a standard "walk the line" test ends badly on some days even if I don't drink at all. So even though I don't smoke pot, and I've never been in the same room as any actively lit up pot (we made the druggie go outside at deer camp) I could, in theory, be locked up for bad balance. Yeah, I don't like that.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 07, 2014 02:30 PM (GaqMa)

626 Stimulants are evil. You try them, you like them. You try them again. Beware.

Posted by: Meekle at January 07, 2014 02:30 PM (kqHcW)

627 The LAPD announced they would start using a cheek swab test to check for drug use, including THC. (don't know how to post link) THC Change, what?

Posted by: grandmalcaesar at January 07, 2014 02:30 PM (yrohn)

628 I would love to stay and discuss this topic further, but if I did I would be shirking some of my responsibilities. As that is the most common prediction regarding the consequence of pot legalization, I would prefer not to engage in it while in a sober state of mind. I have been arguing this topic with a Pot advocate for six years, and I have arguments that I have not even had the time to unlimber and string. They will have to wait for another day. Later folks.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 02:31 PM (bb5+k)

629 > And yet you want to give police, basically, carte blanche to throw your ass in jail because you *seem* high? At least with an alcohol field sobriety test, I can say "bullshit, give me the breath test". No from a CLINICAL standpoint. Sorry, as a physician I knew what I meant, meaning at the bedside with a patient. Although I thinks a FST is more than enough to say "dude you are too fucked up to drive. Lock your car up and I'll give you a voucher to get a cab home." I'd rather pay for the voucher than end up with another carload of dead citizens. As for the test, does not exist YET, hence 'the need for.'

Posted by: OG Celtic-American at January 07, 2014 02:31 PM (vHRtU)

630 I'll bring it up again to the pro pot crowd. Why not legalize powder cocaine?

It can kill you if you use too much.  Pretty much impossible with pot.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2014 02:31 PM (SY2Kh)

631 604 >> No you can be locked up for repeatedoffenses of a misdemeanor. You can be locked up for traffic tickets also.
 
polynikes, wrong. Traffic tickets are not a misdemeanor. In fact, I can get tickets every day and never go to jail as long as:
 
1. I pay the fines.
2. I don't get my license suspended, and then get caught driving.

Posted by: GnuBreed at January 07, 2014 02:32 PM (wNF3N)

632 Reply to 608...They did .... the Cree and Cherokee were once some of the biggest competitors to the Colonial planters.  That was one of the reasons for the seizure of lands in the Southeast during the early days of the US.  BTW the Amerindian in that era (by ethnicity) were the biggest holders of slaves in the North American continent. 

Posted by: dmandman at January 07, 2014 02:32 PM (nOklw)

633 I'd be okay with people smoking pot as long as I don't have to pay for their health care or unemployment...

Hahahahahahahaha!  Imagine even uttering those words with a straight face.

Whatever health care cost might be associated with legal weed are a squirt of piss in the Pacific compared to Medicare now - much less where it will be in another 10 years.  But fuck yeah we should arrest 750K people every year to keep those weed-related health care costs down.

Be pretty funny if the Millennials got all, "I don't mind old people eating pie and shit if I didn't have to pay for their health care.  But since I do, the government should put them on strictly monitored diet and exercise programs and lock them away if they're caught with prohibited food."

But considering the fiscal fucking they're going to get as they reach the peak years of their working lives they'll probably go the Carousel route.

I know plenty of people who smoke pot and every one of them has a job.  I think one of them might make less than six figures, though.

I've known three people who died in alcohol-related car crashes, too.

Yet I still don't think re-instituting alcohol prohibition would be a good idea.  Even though it would save ~75,000 lives and ~$250 billion annually.  Weird, huh?

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at January 07, 2014 02:32 PM (kUgpq)

634 I know several people who smoke pot regularly. They get government checks. Some on Welfare, some on retirement or disability income. Blame our collective addiction to irony. The truth is that the more Tarkin tightens his grip, the more star systems will kneel the fuck before Zod.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 02:33 PM (V3kRK)

635

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at January 07, 2014 06:29 PM (KSjsb)

 

You and ace can name the exceptions but I  think you both know that that they are exactly that.  Exceptions.

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 02:33 PM (m2CN7)

636 >>>I haven't smoked in quite a while, but there seems to be an assumption among the prohibitionists that there are no casual users and everybody who smokes does it all day, every day, in their mom's basement collecting welfare. I know one guy who smokes everyday because he claims it helps his lyme disease, but he also owns a house and has a steady job that pays well. But most of the people I know who smoke it do it once in a while on a weekend, including a married couple who both own businesses and are libertarian-leaning Republicans. i actually know a few very together, very driven, Type A Personalities who use it weekly or so. My theory is that very Type A personalities, the sort of very competitive types in high-pressure jobs, need to balance out all their daily stress.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 02:34 PM (/FnUH)

637 I hate the "but it's the law" line of reasoning. A good law can be defended beyond that. A shitty one get's kicked aside, like the ridiculous "law" banning interracial marriage as recently as the late 1960s in over a dozen states. I can understand someone coming from an anti-pot position orignating from a bad personal experience, or a family issue, or a host of other justifications (though I will disagree with them). But "because it's the law" is the weakest, shittiest reason to support a law.

Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 02:34 PM (DqlhY)

638 >As you can see, you can be locked up for simple possession here. And as somebody point out above, you can be arrested for simply parking your car. Now parking your car has none of the bad side effects of either alcohol or pot.

Posted by: Axeman at January 07, 2014 02:34 PM (cAr2x)

639 Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 06:30 PM (m2CN7) Juries trust cops. Having said that: pot brownie eliminates one of those elements but still creates the danger (as does a freaking shower.)

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 07, 2014 02:34 PM (GaqMa)

640 630 Hollowpoint at January 07, 2014 06:31 PM (SY2Kh)

HAHAHA

//Oncologists

Puff away....hold it tight...

I thought the argument was "my life my body"...

If a coke user wants to cash out that is their choice...

Same thing as playing in traffic basically.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 02:34 PM (TE35l)

641 d-lamp have you turned in your pot-smoking friends? why not? don't you want them in jail?

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 02:35 PM (KHo8t)

642 >>>>I am tired of drawing distinctions between ONE kind of controlling nonsense and another kind of controlling nonsense.>>>>

The fallacy of the excluded middle.

There's a continuum of freedom-restriction. Your position is (apparently) that anyone who wants any form of control is a lover of jackboots, a nanny-stater, a farter in church, and a cannibal.

Fine. But that's your own entirely subjective opinion.

My opposition to the legalization of pot has nothing whatsoever to do with what you think is the reason I oppose the legalization of pot.

What's ironic is you're arguing exactly the way leftists argue: "You disagree with me because (insert attack on one's integrity)."

My opposition to the legalization of pot is long held and well thought out. By your own admission, you just suddenly changed your mind one day.

But I'm not impugning your motives the way you're impugning mine.

Posted by: Tacky Adhesive at January 07, 2014 02:35 PM (+yhVL)

643 A shitty one get's kicked aside, like the ridiculous "law" banning interracial marriage as recently as the late 1960s in over a dozen states. Huge disconnect. The Loving case struck down a *state* law.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 02:35 PM (V3kRK)

644 CO has a pot DUI law:
 
http://tinyurl.com/omclb5l
 
Here's part of it:
 
Drivers with more than 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood could be ticketed and arrested for a drug-related DUI.
    Unlike alcohol drunk driving offenses, marijuana DUIs would not be “per se.” This means that a marijuana DUI ticket and charges would not automatically result in a conviction if the individual tests above the legal limit. Instead, the charges would create a reasonable inference for a judge that a person could have been too impaired to drive.
    Police still need probable cause to pull over a driver who they suspect to be too intoxicated to drive due to marijuana use.
    Police are not allowed to consider a personÂ’s medical marijuana card status as probable cause for requesting a field sobriety test or a blood test.
 

Posted by: GnuBreed at January 07, 2014 02:36 PM (wNF3N)

645 Marijuana can be a very useful drug if used correctly

Posted by: grandmalcaesar at January 07, 2014 02:36 PM (yrohn)

646 @613 Better question, should powder cocaine be used as a third strike to a long prison sentence? Cocaine right now is very illegal, not slightly.

Posted by: Beagle at January 07, 2014 02:36 PM (sOtz/)

647 2. I don't get my license suspended, and then get caught driving.

Posted by: GnuBreed at January 07, 2014 06:32 PM (wNF3N)

 

You get your license suspended because of moving volations.  You have been warned not to drive or you go to jail.   How is that different from being issued a ticket for weed and told if you are caught with weed again you go to jail?

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 02:37 PM (m2CN7)

648 @642
Well put.

Posted by: pep at January 07, 2014 02:37 PM (6TB1Z)

649 The hell with pot. Make testosterone legal without a prescription. Used in moderation, its health benefits are incredible - more muscle and bone, less fat (the most important factors for longer life span), stronger immune system, better relationships. Celebrities and politicians get to have their life-improving testosterone, because they have doctors willing to prescribe it for them.

Posted by: dustydog at January 07, 2014 02:37 PM (Rqd+i)

650 > But "because it's the law" is the weakest, shittiest reason to support a law. I don't know, it's not as stupid as believing that law can be made into math and equations can be made that can't be expanded into more equations. The USA was *something*, it wasn't something and everything that was argued to be like that something, or somebody cried that because what they did was like what you did they weren't being "equally protected" under the law. Now we just have geometrically expanding stupidity.

Posted by: Axeman at January 07, 2014 02:38 PM (cAr2x)

651 633 Baron Von Ottomatic at January 07, 2014 06:32 PM (kUgpq)

Hey Tiger pot will be legal, Pie will be a luxury because of the fucked up economics gifted us by the democrat party.

Look you do not get it you are gonna win, hell I want it so legal the postman brings it to your door...

Pay for it for the welfare class, treat it JUST like Obamacare free for the poor costs too much for the middle class and peanuts to the rich...

too much is never enough.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 02:38 PM (TE35l)

652 Or crack. The powder-crack thing is ridiculous.

Posted by: Beagle at January 07, 2014 02:39 PM (sOtz/)

653 Cocaine is bad news. There is no comparison whatsoever with weed. Meth is even worse, and cheaper. That s*** is the f***ing devil.

Posted by: Meekle at January 07, 2014 02:40 PM (kqHcW)

654 I'll bring it up again to the pro pot crowd. Why not legalize powder cocaine?
Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 06:27 PM (m2CN7)

At this point I'm for legalizing all of the things. The war on drugs, along with the war on poverty and the war on terror*, are turning the country into a bankrupt police state. When war is declared on all societal ills, the authorities will treat every citizen as a potential enemy. Which is why the NSA is shitting all over the Fourth Amendment and why the cops will kick your door in, shoot your dog, and put a gun in your face if they suspect you have an ounce of weed in your house, but will wait for backup if there's an active shooter murdering a classroom full of children.

*I believe we need to fight AQ and their affiliated groups, but the scope of these operations should have been limited to them. The mandate is dangerously open-ended.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at January 07, 2014 02:40 PM (KSjsb)

655
My theory is that very Type A personalities, the sort of very competitive types in high-pressure jobs, need to balance out all their daily stress.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 06:34 PM (/FnUH)

We just do a *lot* of push-ups.

Posted by: tangonine at January 07, 2014 02:40 PM (x3YFz)

656 644 GnuBreed at January 07, 2014 06:36 PM (wNF3N)

Wonderful so see Marijuana users are already ahead of the game....

go to court on a DUI and bam "pay me!"

wheee this is so cool can't wait until I have to dodge a K loader on a flight line driven by an impaired driver.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 02:40 PM (TE35l)

657 >>I haven't smoked in quite a while, but there seems to be an assumption among the prohibitionists that there are no casual users and everybody who smokes does it all day, every day, in their mom's basement collecting welfare... But most of the people I know who smoke it do it once in a while on a weekend, including a married couple who both own businesses and are libertarian-leaning Republicans. << So what? The core of the libertarian position is that there's no difference between the two groups. And as that attitude has gained traction...so has the attitude that voting for Democrats who reduce business owners to welfare, have nothing really to complain about.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at January 07, 2014 02:41 PM (5xmd7)

658 From KTLA site: Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer said a state grant was funding the expanded swab testing. He cited the growth of medical marijuana use as one reason the tests were needed, saying the he wanted to push for further testing of drug use among suspected impaired drivers. The new tests, which takes eight minutes, screen for cocaine, benzodiazepine (Xanax), methamphetamine, amphetamines, narcotic analgesics, methadone and THC representative of marijuana, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Posted by: grandmalcaesar at January 07, 2014 02:42 PM (yrohn)

659 I'll bring it up again to the pro pot crowd. Why not legalize powder cocaine?

Why not legalize powder cocaine?

By what authority can the US government tell me what I can put in my body?

If people want to use drugs why shouldn't they be able to make that choice?

I'll bring this up to the drug warriors.  How many innocent people killed by the police in botched drug raids are you willing to accept each year to prevent people from purchasing and using cocaine?

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at January 07, 2014 02:42 PM (kUgpq)

660 Do what you want... but be aware, these things lead to 'rock bottom'.

Posted by: Meekle at January 07, 2014 02:43 PM (kqHcW)

661 655
My theory is that very Type A personalities, the
sort of very competitive types in high-pressure jobs, need to balance
out all their daily stress.





Posted by: ace at January 07, 2014 06:34 PM (/FnUH)


We just do a *lot* of push-ups.

Posted by: tangonine at January 07, 2014 06:40 PM (x3YFz)
...oh and we do the cabbage patch.

//adjusts spidey man thong

In flip flops.

Posted by: tangonine at January 07, 2014 02:43 PM (x3YFz)

662 O'Reilly is an entertainer, and probably more of his stuff is enlightening than not.

And, frankly, it wouldn't surprise me to see him take the opposite position some time with some one else.  He's an entertainer, and not any kind of intellectual heavy-weight of the Limbaugh model.  In fact, he failed miserably when he tried going head-to-head against Limbaugh several years ago.

O'Reilly is an entertainer and NOT a conservative - although he tends to espouse the conservative view more often than not, but it's because he's in a broadcast venue that derives its ratings/ad-revenues from a conservative audience.

He's an entertainer - who cares what he says?

Posted by: Handcuffed to the Bumper of a State Trooper's Ford at January 07, 2014 02:44 PM (aeVIR)

663 659 Baron Von Ottomatic at January 07, 2014 06:42 PM (kUgpq)

If we legalize medicinal crystal meth Breaking bad becomes an entirely new story...

a sitcom about a small business man trying to kickstart a new vendor...

[i[Malcom in the Muddle[/i]

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 02:44 PM (TE35l)

664 > Inject heroin in my rectal veins? Go on...

Posted by: President Choad-Load at January 07, 2014 02:44 PM (vHRtU)

665 Cocaine is bad news. There is no comparison whatsoever with weed. Meth is even worse, and cheaper.

That s*** is the f***ing devil.

Posted by: Meekle at January 07, 2014 06:40 PM (kqHcW)

 

The is no comparison of Cocaine to meth.  

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 02:45 PM (m2CN7)

666 As for the test, does not exist YET, hence 'the need for.' Posted by: OG Celtic-American at January 07, 2014 06:31 PM (vHRtU) The point is that it does not exist. It is simply not fair to the pot user to say, "Sorry, bud but if you ever want to drive a car, you'd better not take pot because if it's in your system from smoking a few joints 2 weeks ago, your license is being pulled due to a DUI." The test doesn't exist. No amount of wishing or believing in science-fairies will make it exist. It doesn't. Deal with reality and not the fantasy-world where all of the inconvenient problems are magically solved.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2014 02:45 PM (T0NGe)

667 659 I agree. Cocaine is very unpleasant drug but if an adult wants to feel like a rockstar at a lame party, that's their problem.

Posted by: grandmalcaesar at January 07, 2014 02:45 PM (yrohn)

668 Huge disconnect. The Loving case struck down a *state* law. Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 06:35 PM (V3kRK) Before it gets nuts, I'm BY NO MEANS WHATSOEVER equating my right to get baked with my right to marry who I did. Radically different issues. But the arguments pushed in favor of the law by many basically came down to "but it's the law" or "that's what we've gotten acclimated to". A just law has solid reasoning behind it. Argue that reasoning but not just the fact it's a law.

Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 02:47 PM (DqlhY)

669 659 I agree. Cocaine is very unpleasant drug but if an adult wants to feel like a rockstar at a lame party, that's their problem. Posted by: grandmalcaesar at January 07, 2014 06:45 PM (yrohn) Snort it off the tits of an 18 year old girl, then come talk to me.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 02:47 PM (XIxXP)

670 Ace, by saying that any restriction is to be equally eschewed because of big scary tyranny, you've just made the argument for Bath Salts. And if we can find a guy who can take Bath Salts and not want to eat somebody's brain, then I guess, we'll eventually have a standard of somebody who's "not so bad" is a "productive citizen"--because HOW BIGOTED OF YOU to think that somebody on the web that says that they can control their life with Bath Salts cant!!!!!!!!! You just want to harsh somebody's buzz!

Posted by: Axeman at January 07, 2014 02:47 PM (cAr2x)

671

662 O'Reilly is an entertainer, and probably more of his stuff is enlightening than not.

And, frankly, it wouldn't surprise me to see him take the opposite position some time with some one else

 

Nah, he is not the sort that takes the effort to play devil's advocate.  And its really not that enlightening.

Posted by: buzzion at January 07, 2014 02:47 PM (LI48c)

672

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at January 07, 2014 06:42 PM (kUgpq)

 

So you are for the legalization of cocaine.   At least your are consistent.   Not forward thinking .  But consistent.

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 02:48 PM (m2CN7)

673 Today I go to the pharmacy. I have to do this to get a prescription...for folic acid. Folic fucking acid. I have to go to the store when the pharmacy is open because I can't buy folic fucking acid at Walmart. It's only $4 for a monthly dose. Hey, libertarians, can I at least get my folic acid fix OTC, please? Can I do that in my house with normal lightbulbs? Maybe enjoy a Kinder egg? All of that shit is illegal or highly regulated and too bad but we must must must have pot!

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2014 02:48 PM (T0NGe)

674 @669 Sure. You could snort flour off an 18-yr-olds tits too. Still awesome.

Posted by: Beagle at January 07, 2014 02:48 PM (sOtz/)

675 Why not legalize powder cocaine? --- Good question. I'd be fine with that. I'd want there to be harsh penalties for providing cocaine to minors, and for driving on public roads while impaired by cocaine, and for using cocaine in most public settings. If an adult wants to use coke in his or home, go ahead.

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at January 07, 2014 02:49 PM (v/2zq)

676 Enjoy your soma. Don't worry your little head about politics.

Posted by: Trimegistus at January 07, 2014 02:49 PM (BqW72)

677 THC change...

...

...

...

Heh.

Pffffffffffffffffffffffffft.

Posted by: Kensington at January 07, 2014 02:49 PM (H84UO)

678 > A just law has solid reasoning behind it. Argue that reasoning but not just the fact it's a law. People can be deluded about what is a "good solid reason", in the end it's just what judges and lawyers say--oh and polls.

Posted by: Axeman at January 07, 2014 02:49 PM (cAr2x)

679 > The test doesn't exist. No amount of wishing or believing in science-fairies will make it exist. It doesn't. Deal with reality and not the fantasy-world where all of the inconvenient problems are magically solved. Jesus dude don't be such a Luddite. Maybe something will work out some day. It's worth some research $ versus that spent of finding out why homonormative goats grind their teeth... In the meantime, we have to find ways to protect people from unjustified prosecution from a positive screening test that doesn't reflect their ability to function at the time they are investigated.

Posted by: OG Celtic-American at January 07, 2014 02:50 PM (vHRtU)

680 AmishDude, really? I find it very hard to believe that you can't buy folic acid OTC, given that I just bought that very thing OTC today. Where do you live?

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at January 07, 2014 02:51 PM (v/2zq)

681 A just law has solid reasoning behind it. Argue that reasoning but not just the fact it's a law. The miscegenation laws were wrong, but they were state laws. Overturning that state law was an exercise of federal power that, no matter how correct it was, helped along the excesses that got us to where we are today. I am [lamely] arguing that the law about pot should stay put because it is the law. It is not within the federal government's purview to keep it on the books. Instead of having the federal government "relent" and make it OK for potheads to get their smoke, how about we settle the underlying question once and for all? Doing *that* gets me a whole lot closer to the kinds of freedom that *I* want. Giving fedgov the platform to show all the potheads what a benevolent paternal authority it can be not only buys me nothing but actually sets my cause back.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 02:53 PM (V3kRK)

682 There are some folic acid preps that are RX only. That said, common folic acid is OTC world wide...

Posted by: OG Celtic-American at January 07, 2014 02:53 PM (vHRtU)

683 You and ace can name the exceptions but I think you both know that that they are exactly that. Exceptions.
Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2014 06:33 PM (m2CN7)

Possibly. It's hard to tell anecdotally because I don't hang around with layabouts who live off the dole. But in the grand scheme of things I don't care, because the drug war cannot be won without a full-blown police state, and even with that you'd still have a market for illicit drugs. There are an astonishing number of inmates who test positive for drugs - I think it was over 40%. If we can't keep drugs out of the prisons, there is no way in hell we can keep them out of civil society.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at January 07, 2014 02:55 PM (KSjsb)

684 Not forward thinking how?  I'm convinced the costs associated with our War on Drugs far surpass whatever theoretical secondary costs would be associated with legalization.

How many innocents killed by police per year in the WOD is acceptable?

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at January 07, 2014 02:55 PM (kUgpq)

685 When something's going wrong, turn to the bong... ♪♪ ♪♪

Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 07, 2014 02:56 PM (V4CBV)

686 Jesus dude don't be such a Luddite. Maybe something will work out some day. It's worth some research $ versus that spent of finding out why homonormative goats grind their teeth... I am a professional mathematician and all technological and scientific advancement owes me and my people a royalty, goddammit. "Maybe it will work out some day" is science-fairy talk. It's flying cars. Government grants aren't science seeds -- plant them and they grow. Science tends to produce results very slowly if at all. Stop believing in science-fairies.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2014 02:58 PM (T0NGe)

687 Okay, AmishDude, yes, you should be able to get your folic acid OTC, so long as a seller is willing. Ditto for birth control, adderall, and, yes, weed.

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at January 07, 2014 02:58 PM (v/2zq)

688 680 AmishDude, really? I find it very hard to believe that you can't buy folic acid OTC, given that I just bought that very thing OTC today. Where do you live? Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at January 07, 2014 06:51 PM (v/2zq) The dose is too high. At my dosage, it's a script.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2014 02:59 PM (T0NGe)

689 Overturning that state law was an exercise of federal power that, no matter how correct it was, helped along the excesses that got us to where we are today. No, it didn't. The 9-0 decision overturned a clear abuse of civil rights. Arguing it was just another bit of activism that led to all this is nonsense.

Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 03:01 PM (DqlhY)

690 How many innocents killed by police per year in the WOD is acceptable? Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at January 07, 2014 06:55 PM (kUgpq) How many did Cho, Holmes, Laughner and Tsarnaev kill? They were all very heavy pot users. Was it the fault of marijuana? Well, not directly, but...when you give pot to a person with paranoia issues, they get more paranoid. And people with paranoia issues tend to like pot. A lot. A whole lot.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2014 03:03 PM (T0NGe)

691 Hey, libertarians, can I at least get my folic acid fix OTC, please? Can I do that in my house with normal lightbulbs? Maybe enjoy a Kinder egg? All of that shit is illegal or highly regulated and too bad but we must must must have pot! Posted by: AmishDude libertarians favor legalizing all of that. perhaps you should try to be more informed.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 03:04 PM (KHo8t)

692 If you don't know the half life of THC in the Human Body then how can you "legalize" it without knowing how long after you smoke it, you can drive, or operate on a patient, or fly a plane, or serve in the Military, or drive a truck, or operate heavy machinary, or yada yada yada? Posted by: Nevergiveup I agree the standard for pot intoxication is a problem w/ legalization. But if you think about it the standard for DUI is very arbitrary. So they say .08 makes you impaired. I know that after 4 or 5 beers I'm nowhere near as impaired as a first time Same would be true for a pot smoker I assume. Since pot lasts so long in the system my only solution would be to have the law test for the prescense of pot and then examine the actions of the driver in that context. If you smoked in the last few days you damn well better not cause an accident or your azz is in a sling.

Posted by: Sven The Farmer at January 07, 2014 03:09 PM (eBupg)

693 "286 Sometimes Ace posts things so well thought out that I am in awe of his ability to comprehend complex ideas.
Then he makes a post like this and I realize that occasional flashes in the pan do not equate to brilliance.
Posted by: D-Lamp at January 07, 2014 05:29 PM (bb5+k)"

Doesn't make sense.  I suspect you do not understand the idiom, "flash in the pan".

Posted by: The inexplicable Dr. Julius Strangepork at January 07, 2014 03:09 PM (QbT5E)

694 691 X at January 07, 2014 07:04 PM (KHo8t)

Yup Colorado is hard at work on it...

Here's a newsflash champ...there is nothing preventing the state of CO from ignoring the FDA on Folic Acid restrictions like they just decided to ignore federal fucking drug law...

so save me the "we really do support that too" shit...

when I can buy leaded gasoline, or DDT I'll believe liberty is back.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 03:11 PM (TE35l)

695 >>How many innocents killed by police per year in the WOD is acceptable? Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at January 07, 2014 06:55 PM (kUgpq) << None. Let's make it a felony to refuse to open a door when a policeman knocks. 40 to life. That way, they don't really need to get inside at all.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at January 07, 2014 03:12 PM (5xmd7)

696 when sven and amish try to make libertarians sound like "progressives who just want to smoke pot" they sound uninformed about what libertarianism is.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 03:14 PM (KHo8t)

697 No, it didn't. The 9-0 decision overturned a clear abuse of civil rights. Arguing it was just another bit of activism that led to all this is nonsense. Miscegenation law said, "A black person cannot marry a white person." Federal government said, "State cannot restrict that." Yes. Miscegenation laws clearly violate civil rights. From our perspective. Today. And yes, it was wrong from a legal perspective since the 14th Amendment was ratified. Why wasn't that clarified in the 99 years between then and Loving v. Virginia? Your invitation to put us in the mindset of the 1960s leaves open the question of what would be considered unreasonable laws of today come the 2060s: Pot laws? Maybe. How about euthanasia for the elderly? How about euthanasia for kids less than five years old? Yes. This is ridiculously provocative, but it's the flip side of your argument.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 03:19 PM (V3kRK)

698 And people with paranoia issues tend to like pot. A lot. A whole lot. Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2014 07:03 PM (T0NGe) And they tend to dismiss contrary arguments - no matter how well supported - as propaganda without grasping the irony.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 03:19 PM (U1Tts)

699 696 X at January 07, 2014 07:14 PM (KHo8t)

You misspelled Libertine champ...

hey I remember you you're the guy that said I was a fascist b/c "something"...

pedal to the floor baby but quit acting like you libertines give a fuck about any gorwn-up liberty m'kay?

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 03:20 PM (TE35l)

700 As soon as the potheads get their pet freedom, they will abandon the
rest of the fight. If there's one thing you can rely on a pothead for, it's unreliability.

QFT

(again)

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 03:23 PM (5ikDv)

701 I think I called you a statist sven. I welcome your help against big government on those occasions when you oppose it.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 03:25 PM (KHo8t)

702 701 X at January 07, 2014 07:25 PM (KHo8t)

We'll see who the statist is...

I do not have what I want, and I want the state hampered...

let's see how many stoners work to get me economic liberty.

Thanks for playing.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 03:26 PM (TE35l)

703 Masturbatin' Pete is smoking The Pot tonight.

Baltimorons are welcome to join for an impromptu Ewok Nation Meetup.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 03:27 PM (QB4Dm)

704 "This is how everyone argues for nannying -- "At some point, your personal choices will cost me some trivial amount of dollars, or impinge on me in some slight way, so I get to use the law to coerce you to live otherwise than you'd like." This argument is infinitely strechable and infinitely pernicious." What is it about marijuana that makes otherwise rational people resort to completely irrational arguments? A pernicious argument that the left uses all the time is that such and such government action will only "cost me some trivial amount of dollars, or impinge upon me in some slight way." But noting the inescapable reality that we share more and more of our public health costs (despite the fact that we vehemently disagree with it) and that legalizing marijuana is only going to add to that burden is somehow nannying?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 03:29 PM (U1Tts)

705 >>>We'll see who the statist is... we will won't we?

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 03:32 PM (KHo8t)

706 how much do you weigh Burn The Witch?

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 03:33 PM (KHo8t)

707 First, Gallup is suspect to begin with thanks to their minuscule sized percentage of the population that they "Poll", yet they are deemed as the "end all" to polling. Second, the legalization of marijuana is bad, bad, BAD! Once the legalization of drugs starts, there's no stopping, and it is my bet and my belief that within a year, there will be other drugs, harder drugs legalized. Third, in the video, MKH states that in either regime pot is illegal for those under 18. I live in a college town. Under 21 is allegedly the law and limit for drinking, yet every college football game day, the university's parking lots --- among others --- are full to overflowing with tailgaters and students drinking themselves into an alcoholic stupor. Yes, I'm sure that the age limit on pot smoking will be just as effective as the limit on alcohol consumption. NOTHING Good will come from this legalization of marijuana. NOTHING! It is just one more indicator of the path to total depravity this nation is taking.........

Posted by: Jason L. at January 07, 2014 03:36 PM (x2TKm)

708 704 Burn the Witch: "But noting the inescapable reality that we share more and more of our public health costs (despite the fact that we vehemently disagree with it) and that legalizing marijuana is only going to add to that burden is somehow nannying?"

(1) Paying these "public health costs" = nannying. People who voluntarily get messed up on intoxicants can pay for their own treatment.

(2) I smoke pot. I also drink. I vastly prefer the former. But the thing is, I can't always get pot. I can't use it with some of my friends because they don't want to or can't involve themselves with illegal activities. So I end up drinking more frequently than I'd like to. If pot is freely available, whatever public health costs are associated with it will go up, I'm sure. But I'm equally sure that the public health costs associated with booze will go down.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 03:38 PM (QB4Dm)

709 "how much do you weigh Burn The Witch? Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 07:33 PM (KHo8t)" Why, do you need attention?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 03:39 PM (U1Tts)

710 Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 07:26 PM (TE35l) The correct response is, "And I welcome *your* help against big government on those occasions when you oppose it." Potheads are single-issue types. Want to keep them in the tent? Do not lift a finger to make their issue not an issue.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 03:40 PM (V3kRK)

711 Why, do you need attention?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 07:39 PM (U1Tts)


I believe X is making a Monty Python reference.

Posted by: StPatrick_TN at January 07, 2014 03:41 PM (un8zR)

712 it's none of my business BurnTheWitch, even if you're morbidly obese and costing me healthcare dollars.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 03:41 PM (KHo8t)

713 Yes. Miscegenation laws clearly violate civil rights. From our perspective. Today. And yes, it was wrong from a legal perspective since the 14th Amendment was ratified. Why wasn't that clarified in the 99 years between then and Loving v. Virginia? Your invitation to put us in the mindset of the 1960s leaves open the question of what would be considered unreasonable laws of today come the 2060s: Pot laws? Maybe. How about euthanasia for the elderly? How about euthanasia for kids less than five years old? Yes. This is ridiculously provocative, but it's the flip side of your argument. Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 07:19 PM (V3kRK) This isn't a matter of time perspective. It was wrong in 1967. It is wrong today. It was wrong in 1868. The violation of a civil right is not "time-locked".

Posted by: CAC at January 07, 2014 03:42 PM (DqlhY)

714 710 FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 07:40 PM (V3kRK)

Nah they already quit...that's part of what Luap Nor Cult was about...he was an ethical way to throw your vote away while making your point...

AND since Luap Nor Kult got their Spliff over the hump public % wise in opinion I am having a REALLY hard time seeing why we conservatives should stay inside the tent.

Ralph Nader was part of dragging the donks left, and initially it hurt them BUT Ogabe is as left as we have ever had and it is because the moonbat hardcore showed the donks the taste of total defeat without them.

We seem doomed to lose for the next 2-2000 years anyway shit all of this may well be academic thanks to fucking Amigo Grande! so "pedal to the floor!"


Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 03:44 PM (TE35l)

715 Paying these "public health costs" = nannying. People who voluntarily get messed up on intoxicants can pay for their own treatment. I agree with you in theory. In reality, chronic tobacco use results public health costs that exceed tax revenue by a factor of about ten. In our current reality, those public health costs are being borne by the taxpayer in increasing amounts. Lumping legalized pot into the mix is going to increase the costs I must bear. When you can convince me why it's a good idea for me to pay for your habit, I'll support you. I'm listening. "If pot is freely available, whatever public health costs are associated with it will go up, I'm sure. But I'm equally sure that the public health costs associated with booze will go down." You'll forgive me if I don't accept your questionable anecdotal suggestion as an adequate argument.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 03:45 PM (U1Tts)

716 I'm torn between the philosophical simplicity of legalization and the practical difficulties of it.  Instead of reaching for arguments, I'll be watching WA and CO to see what happens. I know one thing for certain - the tax bonanzas being promised will *never* be realized. The rest of the story still needs to be told, at least for me.  The Dutch, and others who have experimented with legalization or decriminalization schemes are not American; I believe culture trumps ideologies any day, so I prefer to wait and see what's next.

Posted by: StPatrick_TN at January 07, 2014 03:49 PM (un8zR)

717 first: "Maybe we should all Tolerate some things we don't actually approve of, in the hopes that our own disapproved-of habits might be tolerated as well." a 1000 times Yes! second: BOR is a tool, stopped watching him a few years ago. third: "14 You don't let babies smoke reefers. You start them off on the can pipe. That's how you keep them humble. Posted by: garrett at January 07, 2014 04:53 PM (cQ2Q9)" that's the funny that keep me coming back...

Posted by: Shoey at January 07, 2014 03:52 PM (vA94g)

718 Burn the Witch:

If you're that worried about public health costs, then why don't we outlaw tobacco - and while we're at it, alcohol?

Reject my experience if you want, but are you seriously arguing that some people won't substitute marijuana for alcohol if they're given that option?

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 03:52 PM (QB4Dm)

719 weed is much less intoxicating than alcohol. if you say otherwise, you merely reveal your ignorance.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 03:53 PM (KHo8t)

720 "it's none of my business BurnTheWitch, even if you're morbidly obese and costing me healthcare dollars." Oh, I see. No, I'm not morbidly obese, nor do I suffer from any condition that siphons money from your pocket. Did you actually want to address the crux of my argument? Are you capable of recognizing it? Or do you just want to try and play games? Wait, I already know the answer to that.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 03:54 PM (U1Tts)

721 This isn't a matter of time perspective. It was wrong in 1967. It is wrong today. It was wrong in 1868. The violation of a civil right is not "time-locked". It most certainly was a matter of time perspective. Virginia chose to take Loving to the USSC nearly one century after the 14th Amendment was ratified and rendered the law incompatible with the Constitution. How many people were born and died in Virginia in that span of time? They all were party to this abominable violation of civil rights. You asked us to look back to the 1960s, roughly five decades ago. I am asking you to look forward to the 2060s, roughly five decades hence. What aspects of today's morality will be viewed as barbarism then?

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 03:55 PM (V3kRK)

722 719 x:

Not only is it less intoxicating, it's a completely different experience. Anyone who treats all "intoxication" as the same is entirely ignorant.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 03:58 PM (QB4Dm)

723 Remember, if you support legalizing guns then you support shooting infants with guns.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 03:58 PM (Y0Z+z)

724 719 X at January 07, 2014 07:53 PM (KHo8t)

Bullshit....they are different but taken to excess both are equally numbing....

I rousted drunks and stoners sport...

in the end the elephant in the room is addiction not kick of choice...

part of why I am "all in" even past the stoners who "are too moral" is if we are to add in a new intoxicant while outlawing functionally another in the form of tobacco we've crossed the "asshole hypocrit" barrier to the point that the best answer is to empower personal destruction in peak time.

Not all drinkers are drunks, not all tokers are junkies...but let's work together to aid those who are at hitting the ejection seat quicker, legally and in the comfort ideally of their home..

so Valet delivery of your intoxicant of choice and the more you screw up and indulge to the point of adverse impacts on your professional life the cheaper we'll make it all the way up to free....

"and the middle class"


Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 03:59 PM (TE35l)

725 723: Roadrunner
Remember, if you support legalizing guns, then you're imposing public health costs on others.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 03:59 PM (QB4Dm)

726 weed is much less intoxicating than alcohol. if you say otherwise, you merely reveal your ignorance. Alcohol is legal. Weed is not. I don't give a shit about any qualitative comparison between the two. Decriminalization now gives potheads what they want, and releases them from the fight. Don't decriminalize, and the potheads are either in the fight for freedom for the long haul to get what they want, or they can take their chances hoping that the jackboots don't muddy their doormats. I'm good either way.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 03:59 PM (V3kRK)

727 722 Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 07:58 PM (QB4Dm)

Really?  Okay...cause I could have sworn I've seen potheads get stoned to the point they are damn near fetal.  As was pointed out above several mass murderers managed to do so with their cheetoh on not blaming the wacky tabakky precisely...

it impacts different folk in different ways and I am all for them being empowered to fly as high as they want.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 04:01 PM (TE35l)

728 "If you're that worried about public health costs, then why don't we outlaw tobacco - and while we're at it, alcohol?" I'd be for it, but my personal preferences are in the minority, and I'm ok with that. I'm all for dismantling the nanny state that ensures I pay for other people's life choices and not giving a damn about what you do. Until we reach that point however, our current reality tells me that I have to care about what chronic abusers of any substance do because I'm paying for it. If I pay for it, I care. It's actually a simple equation. So if your priorities are straight, you'd work first on dismantling the nanny state before you add to its burden. "Reject my experience if you want, but are you seriously arguing that some people won't substitute marijuana for alcohol if they're given that option?" Don't know, don't care. You give me something of a bit more substance than your guesswork and I'll consider it. But then consider the crux of my argument and the importance of taking up vs. the importance of rolling back the nanny state.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 04:01 PM (U1Tts)

729 If you look at the number of people who use drugs, and how readily available drugs are, then they are effectively already legal. Making them officially illegal would at least end the state-enforced monopoly that the drug cartel has on drug sales. If pot is legalized, stoners will become gardeners.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 04:01 PM (Y0Z+z)

730 I don't care one bit about weed. It's the politics of weed that is so wearying and wasteful.

What is the cost of straight up legalization? I don't know. I assume that it is expensive. I know it ain't "free".

Why expend energy and resources , efforts, legislative and otherwise work to fix a "problem" that falls at around #6,000,000,023 on the American to-do list?

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 04:01 PM (5ikDv)

731 "719 weed is much less intoxicating than alcohol. if you say otherwise, you merely reveal your ignorance." ---X at January 07, 2014 07:53 PM And I've known dozens of medical professionals who would and do beg to differ.

Posted by: Jason L. at January 07, 2014 04:01 PM (x2TKm)

732 >>>Oh, I see. No, I'm not morbidly obese, nor do I suffer from any condition that siphons money from your pocket. exactly what a fatty who wanted to avoid a weigh-in would say. you're the one saying it would be my business if you were.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 04:01 PM (KHo8t)

733 Blurp, I can't write apparently. Meant to say "Making them officially legal would at least end the state-enforced monopoly that the drug cartel has on drug sales."

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 04:02 PM (Y0Z+z)

734 *toking up*

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 04:02 PM (U1Tts)

735 Hey Roadrunner...

don't worry while you were stoned the Feds have been trying to outlaw guns using those excuses....

you got me all wrong buddy I support Marijuana Legalization....fuck I support subsidization of it and I HATE subsidies from an economics standpoint...

so wrap your head around that.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 04:03 PM (TE35l)

736 726: FRONT TOWARD LEFT

You're going to have to walk me through this, because I'm missing something:

Potheads want decriminalization, and therefore they're on the side of freedom as long as marijuana is illegal. Do I have that right?

So when presented with a choice of voting for the Republican, who's going to keep their drug illegal, and the Democrat, who will legalize it... who do you think they're going to vote for, and how does that help our side?

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 04:03 PM (QB4Dm)

737 "Remember, if you support legalizing guns, then you're imposing public health costs on others. " You're right. If I learned anything from Prohibition and the War on Drugs, making things illegals makes them go away. Let's make guns illegal and gun crime will stop; this will be consistent with our opposition to legalizing pot.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 04:04 PM (Y0Z+z)

738 >>>But then consider the crux of my argument and the importance of taking up vs. the importance of rolling back the nanny state. Posted by: Burn the Witch you don't even smoke weed and you thought that made sense? think it through...

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 04:05 PM (KHo8t)

739 "Let them smoke cake. "

Posted by: Marie Antoinette [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 04:05 PM (5ikDv)

740 I raised babies to teens. Neither I nor DARE, nor the police could stop,them from smoking pot.l

Posted by: tmitsss at January 07, 2014 04:05 PM (Pa9vP)

741 729 Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 08:01 PM (Y0Z+z)

BWAHAHA "ok" just like people don't get murdered over tobacco bootlegging or moonshine...

they legalized it down in mexopolis tiger murders went up not down.

That is part of why I favor legalizing IT ALL and making the cartels the Federal Government's overt partners...

since we've ceded the moral fight on the societal harms of drugs let's work together to rehabilitate the former drug lords into being simple Logistical and Horticultural and Chemical GSE partners....

Pablo Escobar should have hid longer...he'd be a Senator I think.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 04:06 PM (TE35l)

742 728 Burn the Witch:

"I'd be for [alcohol prohibition], but my personal preferences are in the minority, and I'm ok with that."

You'd like to go back to the glorious days of Prohibition? That's actually something that you want?

I think we're done here. As is your credibility.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 04:06 PM (QB4Dm)

743 Let them smoke cake ----- I don't think so.

Posted by: Michelle Obama at January 07, 2014 04:07 PM (v/2zq)

744 736 Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 08:03 PM (QB4Dm)

Hey Pete....

How's Choom and the Gang doing with those pardons and clemencies for your tribe there bud?

This issue is #64,587 on "shit needing made more free"...and oddly plenty of 20 somethings are down with assaulting the bill of rights but wanting their weed.

Fuck it...pedal to the floor Pete but don't be a hypocrit and stop at weed.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 04:08 PM (TE35l)

745 731: Jason L:

"And I've known dozens of medical professionals who would and do beg to differ."

Then they should have their licenses taken away.

I smoke pot. I drink. The experiences - both psychological and physical - are profoundly different, at every dose. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a fool or a liar.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 04:09 PM (QB4Dm)

746 So what are the consequences of legalization?

Known and unknown unknowns.  Look, there's no right answer to this problem, there's only good enough to muddle through.  I, personally, wouldn't recommend recreational drugs to anyone, notwithstanding my own background.  But the cost of our Federal War on Drugs is just too effin high.  It grants the Feds too much power and diminishes too many of our rights.  It's gotta go.  Let the states be as lenient or as draconian as their respective citizens demand.

Posted by: toby928© at January 07, 2014 04:10 PM (QupBk)

747 You guys can dress it up however you want, but the War on Drugs is just another aspect of the planned society, along with Prohibition and the Dems/Socialists trying to engineer the economy by regulating everything into the ground and controlling everything we do "for our benefit". It's equally ineffective and immoral.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 04:10 PM (Y0Z+z)

748 745 Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 08:09 PM (QB4Dm)

That's a very scientific analysis Pete...

thank you.

Join me in supporting a drug testing free Airport....

pot is different than booze so we should't harsh mellows or shit.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 04:11 PM (TE35l)

749 sven proving ace correct on the tribe theory.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 04:12 PM (KHo8t)

750 744 Sven:

Why the hate? Seriously, what are you so angry about?

I'm not worried about getting caught with weed. Only idiots who carry it around or smoke while driving or in public get caught. So I won't need a pardon from President Choom.

Why do you want me to die? I'm a productive member of society who sometimes unwinds after work with whisky - that was yesterday - and sometimes with pot - that's tonight. Why do you want me to disappear?


Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 04:12 PM (QB4Dm)

751 747 Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 08:10 PM (Y0Z+z)

and I am certain Burning Man will now be a Fiscal Freedom Conclave....

yup yup

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 04:12 PM (TE35l)

752 War on Drugs != Weed Legalization

See Immigration Law , U.S.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 04:13 PM (5ikDv)

753 Remember, too, that Jared Loughner, James Holmes and Seung-Hui Cho's actions with guns don't mean that guns should be kept away from sane, law-abiding folks...but weed should be kept away from sane, law-abiding folks because of these disturbed young men's actions with weed (well, we *think* they used weed. Maybe)

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at January 07, 2014 04:13 PM (v/2zq)

754 748 Sven:

"Join me in supporting a drug testing free Airport...."

I don't want a pilot flying me while high. I also don't want him flying me after even a single glass of wine. That doesn't mean that alcohol should be illegal.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 04:14 PM (QB4Dm)

755 "and I am certain Burning Man will now be a Fiscal Freedom Conclave...." Are you capable of any form of argumentation other than Straw Man?

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 04:15 PM (Y0Z+z)

756 So when presented with a choice of voting for the Republican, who's going to keep their drug illegal, and the Democrat, who will legalize it... who do you think they're going to vote for, and how does that help our side? You cannot pick the null hypothesis. In order to lift the federal criminalization of marijuana, action must be taken at the federal level. House + Senate have to vote to legalize it, and the POTUS (when we have a legitimate one again) will have to sign it into law. Keeping pot criminal is the default. Pot legalization is pretty far down the list of campaign issues. If a democrat wants to run on it, then fine. Let him get murdered in his democrat primaries. The smart move for a GOP candidate faced with the question is to keep his mouth shut and dismiss the entire issue as on the fringe. Any other response is a third rail.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 04:18 PM (V3kRK)

757 Anyone who supports the existence of the FDA while saying pot should be legal is a double standard hypocrite.

Posted by: Zombie Commie Walter Cronkite at January 07, 2014 04:18 PM (oNqbW)

758 750 Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 08:12 PM (QB4Dm)

Whoa cowboy I don't want you to vanish...I want you free and subsidized when needed to go as FAR into bliss as you can.

You said and I quote "democrats who will amke it legal and Republicans who won't" and I pointed out Choom and the Gang had total power and by golly it weren't legal Tex...

now if you elect the Sven wing of the GOP aka the "Fuck it to the moon" caucus you will get intoxicant liberty.....

chase that high with fucking drain cleaner for all I give a fuck.

Keep up the good work with the bullshit inferences and assertions that pot is barely an intoxicant compared to booze hell throw in the all too common stoner..."nah it is not a carcinogen man...it is medicinal in fact" smack...you don't get it I am sold!

Here's the thing don't act like there is a moral case for pot to be legal and not meth, that is an arbitrary thing m'kay....

My own kicks as a youth are still controlled...

uppers and downers both OTC and safe at one time now prescription when taken responsibly....but SHHH the objective is irresponsibility on all counts as you freely acknowledge in castigating booze....

I never killed anyone, nor did I ever drive under the influence which is the arguments I hear made for smoke...

so why not decriminalize Speed and Barbs?

Pedal to the floor bud, sobriety will be marketable.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 04:18 PM (TE35l)

759 Social Conservatives summarized: Guns, the Economy, and Healthcare: The damn paternalistic government needs to stop thinking they are our nanny and mind their own business! Drugs: Paternalism is fucking sexy! We need overfunded anti-drug gov organizations that suffer massive mission creep and destroy the lives of innocent people every day.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 04:20 PM (Y0Z+z)

760 Okay folks, I'm outta here for the night. Here's what's going to happen next:

I'm going to smoke a bowl and get some Chick-fil-A. It's going to be farking delicious as all hell. Wash that shit down with some lemonade, maybe a creamy, sweet iced coffee. Then maybe I'll put Rubber Soul on and listen to that until bedtime.

And you're going to hate that I'm having a good time - even though it has absolutely no effect on you - because that's what Puritans have always done.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 04:20 PM (QB4Dm)

761 759 Social Conservatives summarized:


Guns, the Economy, and Healthcare: The damn paternalistic government needs to stop thinking they are our nanny and mind their own business!

Drugs: Paternalism is fucking sexy! We need overfunded anti-drug gov organizations that suffer massive mission creep and destroy the lives of innocent people every day.

Libertarians summarized:

Give me weed or give me Death!

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 04:21 PM (5ikDv)

762 oops, I misspelled Libertines.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 04:21 PM (5ikDv)

763 754 Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 08:14 PM (QB4Dm)

Damn shame that THC tests don't show how recent usage was then eh Pete?

I worked on a ramp in Blizzards....saw a guy get a leg removed by an impaired forklift operator in the ice.....

I don't really give a fuck what the fucker was on.

I do know that the smoke machine will try to remove pre-employment drug screening(I was using but I am sober now and heyyyy it's legal man) and that increased incidence of use will be handled with more ambiguity than booze.

You fuck up drunk you are done....they know intensity of impairment BOOM blow for me baby...they draw blood if it is past a point or you won't blow....

every THC fueled incident will be litigated to the hilt.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 04:22 PM (TE35l)

764 exactly what a fatty who wanted to avoid a weigh-in would say. you're the one saying it would be my business if you were. Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 08:01 PM (KHo8t) You're right, I am. It's all of our business in today's reality. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be and that if your priorities were straight, you'd want to create a policy environment where it wasn't, then push for legalization. But toking up is more important to you and anyone else who places more importance on mood-altering substances than rolling back the welfare state. Now, keep arguing against that Champ. You're doing so well.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 04:22 PM (U1Tts)

765 You know what I see in our future?  Mississippi and Tennessee will rocket up to mediocrity in HS scoring.

Posted by: Great Reagan's Ghost at January 07, 2014 04:22 PM (LsJAk)

766 Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 08:20 PM (Y0Z+z) And, when you get what you want, you will return to voting to take away my guns, limit my economic freedom, and restrict my access to healthcare to make sure there's enough for you when you need it. Don't fucking pretend like I don't know what the fuck you and all the other fucking wastes of oxygen like you are.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 04:23 PM (V3kRK)

767 I wonder what you people would have been like in 1932:

"Alcohol is dangerous!"
"Drunk driving!"
"Gateway drug!"
"Public health costs!"
"Only losers drink!"

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 04:23 PM (QB4Dm)

768 You'd like to go back to the glorious days of Prohibition? That's actually something that you want? I think we're done here. As is your credibility. Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 08:06 PM (QB4Dm) Right, because apparently English isn't your primary language. Focus Tiger, and quit trying to get cute.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 04:25 PM (U1Tts)

769 "Here's the thing don't act like there is a moral case for pot to be legal and not meth, that is an arbitrary thing m'kay...." Meth is basically a strong amphetamine, and some energy pills like the now-banned Yellow Jacket were basically amphetamines. I took one when I was facing a very long drive through the desert in the southwest, because I feared falling asleep at the wheel much more than the tiny effect of taking 1 pill once in my life. Adults can make rational decisions. It's ok, you can trust us. If you think certain chemicals are intrinsically bad and need banning, then it's no different than Libs thinking every gun except for a single-shot 1800's hunting rifle is intrinsically bad.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 04:25 PM (Y0Z+z)

770 >>>You're right, I am. It's all of our business in today's reality. I would argue that being a statist is poor way to oppose statism.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 04:25 PM (KHo8t)

771 Hey roadrunner I was taking you at your word brother....

You say I am a hypocrite for wanting enumerated liberties while being leery of acting like weed trumps economic liberty to be the "new normal"....

You got me all wrong baby I am certain the potheads will get right to work on forcing the Court Order ignoring Choom King to allow Gulf Oil drilling any fucking day now.....since I am ALL in on the crisis of weed.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 04:26 PM (TE35l)

772 I wonder what you people would have been like in 1932: I wonder what you would have been like in 1932: "I can't wait for FDR's New Deal to pave the way for LBJ's Great Society so I can make all the non-smoking prudes pay for my Doritos."

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 04:26 PM (V3kRK)

773 Everyone who wants to understand the long term societal effects of weed legalization before drastic action ARE SOCIALIST H8TERs!

RAWNPOL!!!11!!!11

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 04:26 PM (5ikDv)

774 >>>And, when you get what you want, you will return to voting to take away my guns, limit my economic freedom, and restrict my access to healthcare to make sure there's enough for you when you need it. you are ignorant about libertarianism.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 04:27 PM (KHo8t)

775 "Damn shame that THC tests don't show how recent usage was then eh Pete?"

You've got it exactly backwards. I'm okay with an airline grounding a pilot for any measurable quantity of THC, even from a week before. Alcohol intoxication is easier to hide, and yet... no planes are falling out of the sky from FWI.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 04:27 PM (QB4Dm)

776 "And, when you get what you want, you will return to voting to take away my guns, limit my economic freedom, and restrict my access to healthcare to make sure there's enough for you when you need it. Don't fucking pretend like I don't know what the fuck you and all the other fucking wastes of oxygen like you are." @FRONT TOWARD LEFT Yeah about that, I voted Republican in the last two elections, and donated money to Scott Walker along with personally writing him handwritten letters sincerely expressing how proud I was of him for breaking the unions. You have no idea who you are talking to. Assuming that because someone supports legalizing drugs then they must be the most vile stereotypical socialist hippy is about as idiotic as assuming that every gun owner is a violent criminal waiting to kill someone.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 04:28 PM (Y0Z+z)

777 >>I'm going to smoke a bowl and get some Chick-fil-A.<< In that order? I hope you walk.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at January 07, 2014 04:28 PM (5xmd7)

778 I would argue that being a statist is poor way to oppose statism. Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 08:25 PM (KHo8t) Then you're arguing against someone else. I think I've made it pretty fucking clear that the state needs to be rolled back before drugs legalized. If you can't read English, don't make that my problem too.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 04:29 PM (U1Tts)

779 Assuming that because someone supports legalizing drugs then they must be the most vile stereotypical socialist hippy is about as idiotic as assuming that every gun owner is a violent criminal waiting to kill someone.


Heh.

Posted by: Officer Paddy O'Irony [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 04:30 PM (5ikDv)

780 Burn the Witch:

You said that you were in favor of banning alcohol. I didn't put those words in your mouth. Read 728 again.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 04:30 PM (QB4Dm)

781 Next we'll legalize fraud. Because the only difference between fraud and a legit transaction is somebody's bigoted feelings. And the needs of the prison-industrial complex.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at January 07, 2014 04:31 PM (5xmd7)

782 I told her: "All things legal will be mandatory." Just wait, the stoners want us all to celebrate them."

Within a generation, all the history books will have kids believing every founder was a transgendered pothead athiest.

Christianity will be outlawed.
Drug use will be mandatory.

Posted by: Zombie Commie Walter Cronkite at January 07, 2014 04:32 PM (oNqbW)

783 You have no idea who you are talking to. Assuming that because someone supports legalizing drugs then they must be the most vile stereotypical socialist hippy is about as idiotic as assuming that every gun owner is a violent criminal waiting to kill someone. And every other pothead thinks just like you do, eh? Are you willing to guarantee that?

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 04:32 PM (V3kRK)

784 >>>I think I've made it pretty fucking clear that the state needs to be rolled back before drugs legalized. If you can't read English, don't make that my problem too. Posted by: Burn the Witch and I've made it clear I think weed needs to be legal and the state rolled backed.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 04:33 PM (KHo8t)

785 FRONT TOWARDS LEFT (and Burn the Witch, while I'm at it):

If you think I'm some sort of leftist, both of you kids need to check yourselves. I've been here a lot longer than you have, and my conservative credentials are impeccable. You want proof? Go here, and scroll down to under the "NSFW" bold text. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/272062.php

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 04:33 PM (QB4Dm)

786 775 Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 08:27 PM (QB4Dm)

Wonderful...I guess since the Feds have shown they are so zealous about enforcing the law that CO gets to break it "sorta" the stage is set for serious Federal Vigilance on Crew Drug use...

Here's the thing I think you think the Tiger is gonna be easy to control and your coalition to get your way is sane.

I'll compare it to the Homosexual GOPers I knew growing up who were sensible and wanted civil unions and SWORE they'd not ever back gay marriage as they acknowledged "hey that will give them an in to try to attack Churches and no way".....

Civil Unions were my pet domestic social cause growing up Pete....

Guess what the GOPers who allied with the mules got their way?

Guess what I an ally of theirs in the caucus didn't get my controls on it.

The courts will be clogged with every person fired for using a legal substance as discrimination and or a science erred test....

A lot of pilots were stoned before 1982....that's a fact "weekend warriors".....

it's impact will be "minimal" hell I'd almost make the argument they were better pilots pound for pound although not because of the drugs as causative.

All in baby.....you got your tiger....

she'll be cake to steer.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 04:34 PM (TE35l)

787 I haven't seen Officer Paddy in a coon's age.

Posted by: dick cheese at January 07, 2014 04:34 PM (QupBk)

788 you are ignorant about libertarianism. Am I? There is a whole shitload of laws on the books out of sync with individual freedom. Beside legalizing pot, what other libertarian causes are you down with? Are you supportive of any of these other causes enough that you would rank their importance above the legalization of pot? The reason I ask is because a shitload of other more substantive (from my point of view) issues will lead to de facto legalization. Get on board with those, and we can *both* get what we want. How about it? You're the one pushing principles here. How about it?

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 04:36 PM (V3kRK)

789 August 31, 2008


Newb.

Posted by: dick cheese at January 07, 2014 04:36 PM (QupBk)

790 781 Chris_Balsz at January 07, 2014 08:31 PM (5xmd7)

I am morally appalled at the legalized theft that goes on with the Feds using the tax code as social engineering tool and vote buying scheme.....

I also have some skills at Tax Prep and audit defense research and accounting.

The aid to DeBlasio is a Tax Cheat....

I am wondering "what;s the big deal man....do YOU WANT ME IN JAIL?!?!"

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 04:36 PM (TE35l)

791 You said that you were in favor of banning alcohol. I didn't put those words in your mouth. Read 728 again. Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 08:30 PM (QB4Dm) Yeah, and apparently you missed your own question. I responded in that context. You see, with our current welfare state, the left uses public health costs as a bludgeon against liberty. As long as we're expected to shoulder all these fucking costs, I have no problem keeping something that's currently illegal, well illegal. Couching this as some sort of "greatest threat to personal liberty" argument is nonsense. The gargantuan nanny state is the greatest threat and allowing you your little personal vice isn't going to do jack shit to the threats to our liberty. I ultimately don't give a shit about drugs and alcohol. I'm for full legalization of it all and abusers should face the consequences of their actions. But that's not our current reality. So you could focus on the real argument I'm making instead of this ZOMGZ HE'Z A TEETOTALLING PROHIBITIONER sideshow you've decided to focus on for whatever reason.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 04:39 PM (U1Tts)

792 there are certain things the Federal Government simply doesn't have any jurisdiction over, the Constitution does not provide the Fed. Gov. with jurisdiction in this area (and a lot of others)therefor it reverts to the States and the citizens. I do not argue that weed is good for you, I do not argue that ANY intoxicant is good for you only that the Federal Government has no legitimate authority to make laws about it. any of it, it's a State and personal issue.

Posted by: Shoey at January 07, 2014 04:39 PM (vA94g)

793 789:

Not really sure when I joined Moron Nation, although that's around the time when I started using this handle. I think I was here back when it was a Smart Military Blog.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 04:40 PM (QB4Dm)

794 and I've made it clear I think weed needs to be legal and the state rolled backed. Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 08:33 PM (KHo8t) Right. And if that's where your priorities are, see FRONT TOWARD LEFT a few thousand times because he/she has you pegged.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 04:41 PM (U1Tts)

795 >>>Am I? you did write these words: >>>And, when you get what you want, you will return to voting to take away my guns, limit my economic freedom, and restrict my access to healthcare to make sure there's enough for you when you need it. you seem extremely ignorant of libertarian positions which are the opposite of what you say they are. as much as libertarians disagree on things, there is consensus on guns, taxes, licensing, health care.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 04:41 PM (KHo8t)

796 Burn the Witch:

I don't know why this is difficult for you. Please don't give me your "context" run-around. Simple question:

If you were the Pope of America, and with a stroke of your pen you could outlaw alcohol tomorrow, would you do it? Yes or no?

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 04:41 PM (QB4Dm)

797 If you think I'm some sort of leftist, both of you kids need to check yourselves. What is the ratio of leftist potheads to non-leftist potheads? Can we agree that it is some number greater than zero? If so, then what possible advantage is there in giving any non-zero number of leftist potheads the benefit of decriminalization?

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 04:42 PM (V3kRK)

798 "Right. And if that's where your priorities are, see FRONT TOWARD LEFT a few thousand times because he/she has you pegged." I don't think anyone is even mentioning priorities. The point is to have a consistent defense of individual liberty. You can't blast gun control as the evils of the paternalistic state while endorsing drug control. In the end, you are either for individual liberty, or against it.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 04:43 PM (Y0Z+z)

799 If you think I'm some sort of leftist, both of you kids need to check yourselves. I've been here a lot longer than you have, and my conservative credentials are impeccable. You want proof? Go here, and scroll down to under the "NSFW" bold text. Don't care about your true con cred or longetivity. Just responding to your arguments here. Did someone call you a leftist? I didn't.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 04:44 PM (U1Tts)

800 >>>You see, with our current welfare state, the left uses public health costs as a bludgeon against liberty. As long as we're expected to shoulder all these fucking costs, I have no problem keeping something that's currently illegal, well illegal. and how do you differ from the leftist statist? sounds like you're on board. you're using public health costs as a bludgeon against liberty on this thread.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 04:45 PM (KHo8t)

801 Sven:

How many commercial airline crashes have been linked to marijuana use by pilots?

And even if you can find one (protip: you can't), why are you making this argument? I don't think pilots should be allowed to smoke pot. How does that affect its legality for people like me, who don't fly anything?

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 04:45 PM (QB4Dm)

802 you seem extremely ignorant of libertarian positions which are the opposite of what you say they are. as much as libertarians disagree on things, there is consensus on guns, taxes, licensing, health care. Prioritize, motherfucker. Prioritize. We roll back the state, then you get yours, and I'm closer to getting mine. We decriminalize, then you get yours, and I'm where, exactly? Knowing the potheads I've known, my pothead allies will evaporate like so much smoke in the breeze.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 04:46 PM (V3kRK)

803 798 Roadrunner:

"You can't blast gun control as the evils of the paternalistic state while endorsing drug control. In the end, you are either for individual liberty, or against it."

Maybe we shouldn't have legal guns until we've rolled back the rest of the welfare state. Because until we've dismantled the welfare state completely, you're going to be paying the costs when people get maimed or killed by guns. Right, Burn the Witch?

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 04:48 PM (QB4Dm)

804 "If so, then what possible advantage is there in giving any non-zero number of leftist potheads the benefit of decriminalization?" The advantage is that you don't let the social conservatives paint your party as political dinosaurs that get mauled in the next century as the majority of Americans support pot decriminalization and gay marriage. A large number of Americans are sympathetic to fiscal conservatism and small government, but they ARE NOT sympathetic to social conservatism. The Left and the media know this, which is why the stereotype of the bible-thumping anti-evolution ant-woman Rethuglican gets ruthlessly exploited every fucking election. If Republicans would just focus on fiscal issues and trimming the government down, they would likely rock elections.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 04:48 PM (Y0Z+z)

805 The point is to have a consistent defense of individual liberty. You can't blast gun control as the evils of the paternalistic state while endorsing drug control. In the end, you are either for individual liberty, or against it. We take one step at a time. What is that first step going to be? You say legalization. I say something else. You want to insist? Then I pick up my marbles and go home. I'd just as soon wait for the burning to start.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 04:49 PM (V3kRK)

806 I don't know why this is difficult for you. Please don't give me your "context" run-around. Simple question: If you were the Pope of America, and with a stroke of your pen you could outlaw alcohol tomorrow, would you do it? Yes or no? And I'm not interested in your fantasy scenarios. I'm not the Pope of America, not going to be, and don't want to be. Either you're able to focus on the meat of a discussion and keep up with all of the follow on comments, or not. At least try.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 04:49 PM (U1Tts)

807 legalizing mj is rolling back the state. did you turn in the potheads you knew? why not?

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 04:49 PM (KHo8t)

808 800 X:

"and how do you differ from the leftist statist?"

He doesn't. He's happy to control you. Until he gets his One Big Issue (rolling back the Nanny State completely), you and your liberty concerns can eat a big bag of dicks.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 04:49 PM (QB4Dm)

809 Smoking pot ruins lives.  Even with decriminalization, it ruins lives.

Do people, kids, still smoke it anyway?  Sure.

But, nevertheless, it DOES ruin lives.  I personally know friends whose lives were radically different from what could have been.  Great athletes who ended up as washed up.  Before they even got out of HS.

Don't give me your Libertarian rants.  I've seen it first hand.

With all that said, the mandatory sentencing has to go.  Pot is here.  Now the real war on drugs begins.

Let's start by limiting its legalization to a few test states.  Let's see what happens before we let the dragon loose across the county.

Posted by: Great Reagan's Ghost at January 07, 2014 04:50 PM (LsJAk)

810 "Maybe we shouldn't have legal guns until we've rolled back the rest of the welfare state. Because until we've dismantled the welfare state completely, you're going to be paying the costs when people get maimed or killed by guns. Right, Burn the Witch?" You are right. And so long as the government is fiddling with the healthcare system and it is illegal for hospitals to turn away scumbags from emergency rooms, then choosing to not purchase insurance should not be a right, because otherwise you'll be paying the costs. We need to take away rights to protect rights.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 04:51 PM (Y0Z+z)

811 Burn the Witch:

You won't answer because your answer would be "yes, I would ban alcohol tomorrow if I could."

At least you're aware of how insane you sound. At least you recognize that such an answer forfeits your right to pretend to be someone with anything worthwhile to contribute to this conversation.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 04:51 PM (QB4Dm)

812 Good Christmas is this still going? I think pot legalization is like shrodingers cat. You don't know till ya do it.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at January 07, 2014 04:52 PM (XIxXP)

813 If Republicans would just focus on fiscal issues and trimming the government down, they would likely rock elections. Let's trim the government down. Before we get to where I want to go, we will get to where the potheads want to go. As Gary Gilmore said, "Let's do it."

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 04:52 PM (V3kRK)

814 789 August 31, 2008


Newb


I remember when pixy started IP hashes for troll control and when the guys get shirts reduced the morons to uncontrollable giggles.

Not really newb

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 04:53 PM (5ikDv)

815 FRONT TOWARD LEFT, why haven't you turned in your friends? shouldn't they be in jail?

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 04:53 PM (KHo8t)

816 "I don't think anyone is even mentioning priorities. The point is to have a consistent defense of individual liberty. You can't blast gun control as the evils of the paternalistic state while endorsing drug control. In the end, you are either for individual liberty, or against it." Sure people are mentioning priorities. Since you like to think in binary terms - what do you place more importance on - rolling back the nanny state which effects every one, or legalizing the use of a recreational drug. Do you think the legalization of the use of a recreational drug is of equal importance to protection of an enumerated right in the constitution that helps to protect us from tyranny?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 04:53 PM (U1Tts)

817 "Smoking pot ruins lives. Even with decriminalization, it ruins lives." My good friend in high school died from drunk driving, and a close family member died of a concussion from high school football. It ruins lives, so we totally need a massive government organization monitoring every inch of alcohol and football.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 04:54 PM (Y0Z+z)

818 He doesn't. He's happy to control you. Until he gets his One Big Issue (rolling back the Nanny State completely), you and your liberty concerns can eat a big bag of dicks. You cocksucking little leftist faggot. So the One Little Issue outweighs the One Big Issue that cause the One Little Issue in the first place? Go take another couple of puffs off of Obama's cock you faggot motherfucker.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 04:55 PM (V3kRK)

819 >>>>Do you think the legalization of the use of a recreational drug is of equal importance to protection of an enumerated right in the constitution that helps to protect us from tyranny? why did prohibition of alcohol require an amendment and prohibition of mj not? that's 80 years of the constitution being abused.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 04:56 PM (KHo8t)

820 801 Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 08:45 PM (QB4Dm)

You are saying no pilot ever fucked up because of THC?

Ok I read NTSB incident reports when I can't sleep Pete I'll look.

I am telling you that I support pedal to the floor now, you convinced me brother....I also am telling you you haven't lived until you've watched a DC-8 pick up a utility loading device hut and trap it on a nacelle, safety first is not a natty slogan in aviation it is a way of life(in theory)....

You got your way Tiger(if you are CO etc etc) I am certain you can control this fucked up hopscotch legalization and litigation train....

I notice you did not exactly answer my point about the fact that stoners now have extra litigation outs from a legal theory standpoint....

since there is no scientific test to show "how stoned I are" that it will be a judicial ten yard fight every time....

Individual judge bias comes into play, appeals give the men and women in black random swings at the pinata and Ole new Constitutional liberties are born and old ones killed....ala Kelo and Abortion and now it seems Gay Marriage by fiat....

Toke up and have fun, enjoy the dance....

I will.  Unless I get a leg cut off.

By the way unlike X and a few other Wakky Tabakky advocates that just cannot wrap their head around how thrilled I am to be even more for intoxicant liberty than they are...

I have missed you, and always enjoyed having you around.

Be safe, keep warm....

I don't give a fuck how one copes that doesn't harm another....

just don't ask me to bake a cake.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 04:56 PM (TE35l)

821 FRONT TOWARD LEFT, why haven't you turned in your friends? shouldn't they be in jail? What makes you think I have any belief in the legitimacy of the state?

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 04:57 PM (V3kRK)

822 817 Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 08:54 PM (Y0Z+z)

Don't worry champ they're working on football and last time I checked there's random DUI checkpoints and a pretty non amused by the drunk judiciary....

keep tilting those windmills.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 04:58 PM (TE35l)

823 809 Great Reagan's Ghost:

"But, nevertheless, it DOES ruin lives. I personally know friends whose lives were radically different from what could have been. Great athletes who ended up as washed up. Before they even got out of HS."

(1) Minors should not smoke marijuana. I'd support significant penalties for those who gave pot to anyone under 18/21.

(2) I don't like the "ruined lives" argument because it implies that the point of existence is to work as hard as possible. Produce, produce, produce. Consume, consume, consume. That attitude is a sickness, not an attribute. I'm not entitled to anyone else's labor. I don't have the right to insist that someone not sit around all day. By the same token, they're not entitled to have me support them. But it's none of my business whether someone wants to live on the beach and surf all day, or work 100-hour weeks... or smoke a lot of pot and not make much out of his life.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 04:58 PM (QB4Dm)

824 "and how do you differ from the leftist statist? sounds like you're on board. you're using public health costs as a bludgeon against liberty on this thread." Because I'm currently expected to pay for your vices. Are you really not able to wrap your brain around such a simple concept? You give me one good reason why I should be expected to shoulder yet another burden, meanwhile nothing happens toward rolling back the greatest threat to our society.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 04:58 PM (U1Tts)

825 "Sure people are mentioning priorities. Since you like to think in binary terms - what do you place more importance on - rolling back the nanny state which effects every one, or legalizing the use of a recreational drug. Do you think the legalization of the use of a recreational drug is of equal importance to protection of an enumerated right in the constitution that helps to protect us from tyranny?" Look, I'll tell you what I see and think. I see and hear many people everyday who would be receptive of small-government pro individual liberty ideas, and everyday they are repulsed from Republicans because of the hardcore social conservatives. They flock into the open arms of Dems, because Dems in conjunction with the media have skewered Republicans. So long as Republicans keep pimping social conservatism and a paternalistic state monitoring textbooks for evolution and banning weed and keeping gay people from having secks, then they keep inviting themselves to be dismantled. I was raised in a tiny farm town in rural Texas, and work in an ultra-leftist university (redundant!) in the north. I've seen lots of different Americans, and they are all surprisingly open to the ideas of individual responsibility, fiscal conservatism, and small government. But show them Rick Santorum's face, and they will run to Dems, even as the world burns.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 05:00 PM (Y0Z+z)

826 821 FRONT TOWARDS LEFT:

"What makes you think I have any belief in the legitimacy of the state?"

Might have something to do with the fact that you want to use the power of the state to prohibit people from burning plants and inhaling the smoke in the privacy of their homes.

That's just a guess, though.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 05:01 PM (QB4Dm)

827 You won't answer because your answer would be "yes, I would ban alcohol tomorrow if I could." At least you're aware of how insane you sound. At least you recognize that such an answer forfeits your right to pretend to be someone with anything worthwhile to contribute to this conversation. You're projecting insanity, Sport. You're now arguing in my stead about some irrelevant sideshow bullshit I've addressed a few times now. Keep it up. You're doing wonders for the pot crowd.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 05:02 PM (U1Tts)

828 >>>Because I'm currently expected to pay for your vices. actually I'm the one paying for your vice of being a busybody puritan. MJ prohibition isn't free. I'm tired of it. mind your own business.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 05:02 PM (KHo8t)

829 paternalistic state monitoring textbooks for evolution and banning weed and keeping gay people from having secks


Leftist troll.

Be sure to tip your waitresses.

G'night

/thread

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 05:02 PM (5ikDv)

830 818 FRONT TOWARDS LEFT

"You cocksucking little leftist faggot.

So the One Little Issue outweighs the One Big Issue that cause the One Little Issue in the first place?

Go take another couple of puffs off of Obama's cock you faggot motherfucker."

--------

I don't actually have a response to this. I just thought I'd repeat it because it's awesome in every way.

Scratch a drug warrior, find a fascist.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 05:03 PM (QB4Dm)

831 right roadrunner....

so let me see if I have this straight we need to jettison the pro-lifers....or rather "just shut the fuck up and vote for us dumbasses" and we'll gain a shitload of pro-abortion Liberitne Party fiscal conservatives...

okay....

2008 called....HELLO?

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 05:04 PM (TE35l)

832 Maybe we shouldn't have legal guns until we've rolled back the rest of the welfare state. Because until we've dismantled the welfare state completely, you're going to be paying the costs when people get maimed or killed by guns. Right, Burn the Witch? This is a non sequitur worthy of engraving on a virtual plaque and posted in the sidebar. Less conflation, more focus.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 05:04 PM (U1Tts)

833 Paul/Weed 2016!

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 05:05 PM (5ikDv)

834 Might have something to do with the fact that you want to use the power of the state to prohibit people from burning plants and inhaling the smoke in the privacy of their homes. Listen, you cocksmoking piece of shit: The power of the state prohibits your from burning plants and inhaling the smoke in the privacy of your own home. My choices are: 1. Join your crusade to disallow the state that power knowing that once you get that wish, you and all the other potheads will be cool with whatever else the state does/wants to do 2. Invite you to join my crusade to eliminate the state's power knowing that somewhere along the state's way to the size that is right in my view, the state will be disallowed that power What would you do in my shoes, you pothead asshole?

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:06 PM (V3kRK)

835 Who ate all the nachos and ho-ho's?

Posted by: model_1066 at January 07, 2014 05:06 PM (LIQGY)

836 Scratch a drug warrior, find a fascist. Am I a fascist, you cocksmoking little faggot? Explain it to me, please.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:07 PM (V3kRK)

837 827 Burn the Witch

"Keep it up. You're doing wonders for the pot crowd."

It appears that I am. We're winning. You're losing. And you're going to have to deal with the fact that I'm going to be smoking legal weed soon, and you're going to die without seeing your paradise of a completely dismantled welfare state. If you think that's ever going to happen, you're delusional.

Thanks for playing, Sparky.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 05:07 PM (QB4Dm)

838 >>>Keep it up. You're doing wonders for the pot crowd. Posted by: Burn the Witch if I had to choose an advocate for ban boner crowd, it would be you.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 05:07 PM (KHo8t)

839 Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 09:00 PM (Y0Z+z) Like I give a damn about the GOP. I'm not approaching pot from a socially conservative standpoint. Never have.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 05:08 PM (U1Tts)

840 Is it because I called you a faggot, you little faggot? You're the one that brought "eat a big bag of dicks" into the argument, you homoass butt pirate fag piece of shit.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:09 PM (V3kRK)

841 "so let me see if I have this straight we need to jettison the pro-lifers....or rather "just shut the fuck up and vote for us dumbasses" and we'll gain a shitload of pro-abortion Liberitne Party fiscal conservatives..." You would win sane people from the middle. I'm not advocating magically winning the hearts of hardcore leftists. "2008 called....HELLO?" McCain-Palin was about the weakest ticket imaginable. On 2012: The GOP fielded probably the bluest Republican they could find, then ran a shitty campaign against Obama's expertly crafted campaign. Meanwhile the entire media complex (except for Fox, basically the only honest news) was in permanent campaign mode, and even the debate moderators were helping Obama.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 05:09 PM (Y0Z+z)

842 And you're going to have to deal with the fact that I'm going to be smoking legal weed soon, and you're going to die without seeing your paradise of a completely dismantled welfare state. If you think that's ever going to happen, you're delusional. And a large part of my dying never having seen the welfare state dismantled is because the potheads got their smoke, and, completely satisfied, left the battle. You win. We all lose.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:10 PM (V3kRK)

843 actually I'm the one paying for your vice of being a busybody puritan. MJ prohibition isn't free. I'm tired of it. mind your own business. I am minding my business. If I'm paying for your choices, it's my business. All you gotta do is focus more on rolling back the state and, as FTL has so eloquently put it, you get what you want long before I do.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 05:10 PM (U1Tts)

844 "Scratch a drug warrior, find a fascist. " You won the internet :-D

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 05:11 PM (Y0Z+z)

845 Am I a fascist, you cocksmoking little faggot? Explain it to me, please. Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 09:07 PM (V3kRK) Not wanting to get into this little tiff, but I think what he meant is that you are considered a fascist because you think you should be able to tell people what items they can and cannot ingest in the privacy of their own homes. Plus, it is obvious that laws in place to do just that are not working whatsoever. That's just my take and is all that I will say.

Posted by: model_1066 at January 07, 2014 05:11 PM (LIQGY)

846 " Invite you to join my crusade to eliminate the state's power knowing that somewhere along the state's way to the size that is right in my view, the state will be disallowed that power"

But that's a lie. That whole "somewhere along the way"? That's *right now*. Now is the time to roll back the insanity of the War on Drugs. And you're saying "no, later." When will be right time?

Never. It's never going to be the right time for you.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 05:11 PM (QB4Dm)

847 *pokes head into thread and sees Front's meltdown* Whoa. If ever there was a need for some chronic and a round of kumbaya...

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at January 07, 2014 05:12 PM (v/2zq)

848 >>>If I'm paying for your choices, it's my business. that's a leftist argument. but you don't pay a thing for me, so it is none of your business.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 05:14 PM (KHo8t)

849 Posted by: model_1066 at January 07, 2014 09:11 PM (LIQGY) The laws that are in place are in place. Why should anyone lift a finger to remove these laws that are important to potheads when instead they should be working against other laws important to me to get *both* what I want and what the potheads want? That doesn't mean I want these laws to remain in place on principle, but they serve a purpose for me as far as the game goes.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:15 PM (V3kRK)

850 "Why should anyone lift a finger to remove these laws that are important to potheads when instead they should be working against other laws important to me to get *both* what I want and what the potheads want?"

Because maybe you don't want your door kicked down and your dogs shot by in a no-knock raid when the cops get the address wrong and meant to get the pot grower down the street?

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 05:16 PM (QB4Dm)

851 Good to know that FTL had it exactly right.

Single issue potheads will throw every other conservative under the bus as long as they get their precious weed. Then disappear in cloud of smoke.

You guys should form your own version of GLAAD.

Americans love that shit.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 05:16 PM (5ikDv)

852 It appears that I am. We're winning. You're losing. And you're going to have to deal with the fact that I'm going to be smoking legal weed soon, and you're going to die without seeing your paradise of a completely dismantled welfare state. If you think that's ever going to happen, you're delusional. Thanks for playing, Sparky. I never said you weren't winning. It's quite obvious you are. Now let's take a look at what you've won - increasing the public healthcare costs for us all because you really really really want to use a recreational substance. Good for you Big Fella. At least you've finally gotten to the point of honesty. You don't give a damn about the size and scope of government or what anyone else has to pay to subsidize recreational life choices. You just want your little artificial paradise. Great job! thanks for not playing.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 05:16 PM (U1Tts)

853 >>>Why should anyone lift a finger to remove these laws principle.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 05:17 PM (KHo8t)

854 But that's a lie. That whole "somewhere along the way"? That's *right now*. Now is the time to roll back the insanity of the War on Drugs. And you're saying "no, later." When will be right time? Is it a lie, you cumguzzling little faggot bitch? Does a federal government cut down to fit within the Constitution and its current ratified Amendments have the power to criminalize marijuana at the federal level? Or, are you really looking for a federal decriminalization that's incorporated to the states? When will be the right time to roll back the overreach of the federal monster? Are you saying that right time is some time after you get your smoke?

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:18 PM (V3kRK)

855 "Single issue potheads will throw every other conservative under the bus as long as they get their precious weed. Then disappear in cloud of smoke."

That holds true for the gun rights people. The anti-abortion people. The low-tax people. The get-rid-of-Obamacare people. The free-trade people. The secure-the-borders people.

Everyone has his favorite issue. Are you going to tell those people to wait, because if they get their issue fixed before you do, they're going to disappear?

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 05:19 PM (QB4Dm)

856 *every other conservative priniciple


works either way.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 05:19 PM (5ikDv)

857 Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 09:17 PM (KHo8t) Rolling back the overreach is a principle, too. Which one comes first?

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:19 PM (V3kRK)

858 that's a leftist argument. but you don't pay a thing for me, so it is none of your business. Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 09:14 PM (KHo8t) No, it's a "this is reality" argument. If you legalize weed, you are going to increase public healthcare costs. It's that simple. So you're asking me to pay more. I'm asking why I should pay more and getting an argument that smoking a recreational drug is just as important as the 2nd Amendment. Meanwhile, the government keep growing and growing and the 2nd Amendment continues to come under assault. But if we just legalize weed, all will be well. Sorry, I'm not buying what's being sold here.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 05:21 PM (U1Tts)

859 Everyone has his favorite issue. Are you going to tell those people to wait, because if they get their issue fixed before you do, they're going to disappear? Nope. Because I am pretty fucking militant on each of the ones you listed. Pot legalization does not make my list. I'm sure that none of these issues you listed makes the average pothead's list.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:21 PM (V3kRK)

860 " You don't give a damn about the size and scope of government or what anyone else has to pay to subsidize recreational life choices."

You have a "recreational life choice," too. It's called "Living in a World Where We Arrest and Jail Pot Smokers."

Do you think that those cops, prosecutors, public defenders, prison guards, and parole officers work for free? Or do I have to pay for them with my tax dollars?

I'm paying for your Puritanism, and I'm damn tired of it.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 05:22 PM (QB4Dm)

861 >>>Which one comes first? apparently pot. you going to hold out and make enemies? you want people jailed, but you don't believe in the legitimacy of the state. does that make sense in your head?

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 05:22 PM (KHo8t)

862 "If you legalize weed, you are going to increase public healthcare costs. It's that simple. So you're asking me to pay more."

If you legalize weed, you're no longer going to be paying for three hots and a cot for people jailed for weed. So I'm asking you to pay less.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 05:23 PM (QB4Dm)

863 FTL, do you genuinely not get that this isn't a choice between "roll back federal overreach" and "roll back marijuana prohibition"? Marijuana prohibition is part of federal overreach. It's like you're saying " Don't scrub the toilet, clean the bathroom! Priorities!" No one on ace wants to *just* roll back marijuana laws.

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at January 07, 2014 05:24 PM (v/2zq)

864 Because maybe you don't want your door kicked down and your dogs shot by in a no-knock raid when the cops get the address wrong and meant to get the pot grower down the street? Should that become the issue for me, I will take care of the pot grower down the street before it can happen to me. Self defense. I fucked up when I failed to do so with the potheads next door that set fire to the town house adjoining mine a few years back.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:24 PM (V3kRK)

865 Dammit Pete, does the THC make you that obtuse?

You and these two KOS twin trolls have ignored FTL and Burn the Witches point that we are headed toward the same direction . Getting what we want gets you what you want.

You are all three talking past everyone in your mad quest to point out the hypocrisy of SOCONZ or which ever windmill you are currently tilting.

I will NOT throw every conservative under the bus for a single issue. I also realize that the repeal of legislation that I hate will not ( short of revolution) happen in my lifetime . But I am still willing to work toward it's accomplishment. That's the difference between us.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 05:25 PM (5ikDv)

866 Marijuana prohibition is part of federal overreach. It's like you're saying " Don't scrub the toilet, clean the bathroom! Priorities!" No one on ace wants to *just* roll back marijuana laws. Bad argument. There are quite a few here tonight who *just* want to roll back marijuana laws.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:26 PM (V3kRK)

867 Okay, FTL, you havs some trouble with the difference between vigilantism and self-defense.

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at January 07, 2014 05:28 PM (v/2zq)

868 You have a "recreational life choice," too. It's called "Living in a World Where We Arrest and Jail Pot Smokers." Do you think that those cops, prosecutors, public defenders, prison guards, and parole officers work for free? Or do I have to pay for them with my tax dollars? I'm paying for your Puritanism, and I'm damn tired of it. Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 09:22 PM (QB4Dm) This has fuckall to do with Puritanism and you know it if you're able to recall the discussion that's been going on here and is easily referenced by scrolling up. Unless you think there should be no age restrictions or possession restrictions, I regret to inform you that the criminal justice system will still be engaged in the enforcement of these restrictions. Considering that the vast majority of pot smokers are under the age of majority, all these supposed savings we're supposed to realize from legalization are wildly overstated.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 05:28 PM (U1Tts)

869 How is marijuana part of "federal overreach" any more than any other banned drug? And saying it's not as bad doesn't have anything to do with that. when did the online conservative movement become a bunch of adolescent libtarian purists

Posted by: the kid at January 07, 2014 05:28 PM (TP6sz)

870 yeah, we don't understand that when FTL noone and BTW oppose rolling back the state they are really opposing big government. because some fatty thinks it will cost more than cops on $250k pensions.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 05:28 PM (KHo8t)

871 apparently pot. you going to hold out and make enemies? you want people jailed, but you don't believe in the legitimacy of the state. does that make sense in your head? You don't want people jailed for pot. I don't want to have to give up so much of what I earn in income taxes. We work toward providing me relief, and there will be no funding to support the federal government's criminalization of marijuana, and I will not have to give so much of what I earn in income taxes. We work toward providing you relief, and you will get your smoke, and I will get what?

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:29 PM (V3kRK)

872 "because the drug war cannot be won without a full-blown police state"

This keeps being told but it is the most absurd and lamest lie one can think of.

Think: Is this an argument for legalizing heroin? abolishing USDA inspections of meat? ending our FBI war on bank robberies?

"because the war on stock market fraud cannot be won without a full-blown police state"
yup, we have to legalize stock market fraud because of the draconian police state Sarbanes-Oxley and Frank-DoDd and other statist rules... ho, wait, you want to KEEP those?!?

All it takes to stop drug use is a culture that is opposed to it. In fact, it is the pro-pot culutre and NOT the legal status that is driving use. End the pro-pot culture and the risk of police states diminish.


Posted by: Zombie Commie Walter Cronkite at January 07, 2014 05:29 PM (oNqbW)

873 "If you legalize weed, you're no longer going to be paying for three hots and a cot for people jailed for weed. So I'm asking you to pay less." Addressed in my previous comment.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 05:29 PM (U1Tts)

874 FTL:

"Should that become the issue for me, I will take care of the pot grower down the street before it can happen to me. Self defense."

Great. Vigilante justice. You, sir, are insane. I'm not in favor of gun control, but you're helping to change my mind.

And that's assuming you can even find him. Maybe the cops were supposed to kick in the door and shoot the dogs at 123 Maple Street, across town, when they went for your door at 123 Naples Street.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 05:30 PM (QB4Dm)

875 "But that's a lie. That whole "somewhere along the way"? That's *right now*. Now is the time to roll back the insanity of the War on Drugs. And you're saying "no, later." When will be right time?"

Why is now the time to legalize heroin?

NOW is the time to roll back Obamacare.

Posted by: Zombie Commie Walter Cronkite at January 07, 2014 05:30 PM (oNqbW)

876 @870 yeah, we don't understand that when FTL noone and BTW oppose rolling back the state they are really opposing big government. because some fatty thinks it will cost more than cops on $250k pensions.


So , troll, are we talking marijuana legalization or ending ALL drug enforcement.

Because you are ALL over the place.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 05:31 PM (5ikDv)

877 I don't like seatbelt laws, quit oppressing me with ur federal overreach

Posted by: the kid at January 07, 2014 05:31 PM (TP6sz)

878 869 the kid at January 07, 2014 09:28 PM (TP6sz)

I dunno but since we are go whole hog...

what we're gonna do is fuck up and make overuse consequence free...

Nah fuck it I was wrong to be against subsidy before taking the long view giving them all the drugs they want is cheaper than the 2 mill a head I would offer FSA for permanent exile to Africa or South America...

You want Heroin>?  In ounces, pounds or tons?

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 05:31 PM (TE35l)

879 yeah, we don't understand that when FTL noone and BTW oppose rolling back the state they are really opposing big government. because some fatty thinks it will cost more than cops on $250k pensions. I am against big government. You are against pot laws. If you help me get rid of big government, then big government and the pot laws go away. If I help you get rid of pot laws, then the pot laws go away. What happens to getting rid of big government? Can I count on you to continue the fight? Can I count on every other pothead to continue the fight? Do not insult me with a response to that. Hell, you probably know other potheads. Would you hire them to babysit your kids?

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:32 PM (V3kRK)

880 FRONT TOWARD LEFT, your language got old pretty fast. Repetition, intensity, and offensiveness are not methods of argumentation.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 05:32 PM (Y0Z+z)

881 Who, FTL? Pete supports small government, so do I, and as far as I can tell, X does too (he/she isn't brand new, but I haven't seen X's opinion on many other things). Yes, the average weed-scented d-bag might be a single-issue pot voter, but that's not who you're spewing at.

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at January 07, 2014 05:32 PM (v/2zq)

882 @877 I don't like seatbelt laws, quit oppressing me with ur federal overreach

fucking traffic lights. QUIT OPPRESSING ME WITH UR COLORZZ

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 05:33 PM (5ikDv)

883 "This has fuckall to do with Puritanism and you know it if you're able to recall the discussion that's been going on here and is easily referenced by scrolling up."

Spoken like a true Puritan.

It absolutely kills you that other people are having a good time while you don't get to live in your Ayn Rand paradise. Boo hoo.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 05:33 PM (QB4Dm)

884 are you saying we'd see no savings dummy? there's nothing left to cut!

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 05:33 PM (KHo8t)

885 875 Zombie Commie Walter Cronkite at January 07, 2014 09:30 PM (oNqbW)

But you Zombie Uncle Walter like pot in legalizing medicinal Vitamin H we are somehow REDUCING COSTS to the state....

we make up for the ODs in volume...

I favor medicinal drain cleaner

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 05:33 PM (TE35l)

886 Because you are ALL over the place. Posted by: noone, really at January 07, 2014 09:31 PM (5ikDv) Yeah, Pete seems to be coming back to a rational discussion (which I appreciate) and Roadrunner kept it fairly reasonable, but this X child is really a piece of work.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 05:33 PM (U1Tts)

887 >>>What happens to getting rid of big government? if we have to count on morons like you, we're screwed on that front.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 05:35 PM (KHo8t)

888 886 Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 09:33 PM (U1Tts)

Well BTW "X" stands for an intoxicant and it ain't pot...

but who am I to judge>?

Let the good times roll....

Medicinal Peyote

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 05:35 PM (TE35l)

889 If you help me get rid of big government, then big government and the pot laws go away.
If you help me get rid of big government, then big government and the pot laws go away.
If you help me get rid of big government, then big government and the pot laws go away.
If you help me get rid of big government, then big government and the pot laws go away.

Why is this hard?

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 05:36 PM (5ikDv)

890 Okay, FTL, you havs some trouble with the difference between vigilantism and self-defense. Do I? That cocksmoking little cumguzzling faggot is the one saying that having my door kicked down on a no-knock is the natural consequence of my refusing to lift a finger to legalize marijuana. The world where that is a fact of life is the same world where I can gun down hippies with impunity. Pardon me. I'll be in my bunk.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:36 PM (V3kRK)

891 conservatism/liberalism isn't really a debate between big govt/small govt per se, rather one between what the essential functions of govt are/should be. but at least it's a debate. libertarians just handwave the whole thing away and promise everything will all work out

Posted by: the kid at January 07, 2014 05:37 PM (TP6sz)

892 Fuck O'Reilly. I'd prefer my kid smoke a bit of dope then grow up to be a married lecherous older man who tries to get it on with uninterested co-workers. http://gawker.com/5380802/happy-bill-oreilly-loofah-day

Posted by: John at January 07, 2014 05:37 PM (DFYFj)

893 Spoken like a true Puritan. It absolutely kills you that other people are having a good time while you don't get to live in your Ayn Rand paradise. Boo hoo. Apparently I spoke too soon about you coming back to a rational method of arguing.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 05:37 PM (U1Tts)

894 "Pot legalization will lead to MORE statism, not less"

Yes.

More pot = more laws, more welfare, more dependency, and LESS self-reliant individualistic behavior.

All the pro-pot hypocrites need to demand the end of the FDA first and then move to lesser issues like this one.

But they dont want freedom, they want to legalize their addiction.   Just as gay marriage has gotten statists MORE involved in MORE family law disputes, all these changes are about f-ing up responsible traditional mores and NOT about freedom.

Posted by: Zombie Commie Walter Cronkite at January 07, 2014 05:38 PM (oNqbW)

895 "FTL, do you genuinely not get that this isn't a choice between "roll back federal overreach" and "roll back marijuana prohibition"? Marijuana prohibition is part of federal overreach. It's like you're saying " Don't scrub the toilet, clean the bathroom! Priorities!" No one on ace wants to *just* roll back marijuana laws." I just did a slow clap. One breathing sentient life form comprehended this. Thank you.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 05:38 PM (Y0Z+z)

896 'Mamas don't let your babies grow up to puff reefer' or for that matter, peter. Look at 1600 to see what that gets you.

Posted by: Erowmero at January 07, 2014 05:39 PM (OONaw)

897 >>>>but at least it's a debate. libertarians just handwave the whole thing away and promise everything will all work out another who has demonstrated their ignorance of libertarian positions. tell me more about libertarians.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 05:39 PM (KHo8t)

898 "Why work on behalf of potheads for this change when there are so many other changes that need to happen that the potheads won't give a rat's ass about once they get theirs?"

The one change we need - repeal Obamacare.

Every other issue is a distraction.

Posted by: Zombie Commie Walter Cronkite at January 07, 2014 05:39 PM (oNqbW)

899 "I just did a slow clap. One breathing sentient life form comprehended this. Thank you." No, one more breathing, sentient life form fails to grasp the problem here.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 05:40 PM (U1Tts)

900 897 "you don't understand libertarianism" -- classic libertarian talking point right there

Posted by: the kid at January 07, 2014 05:40 PM (TP6sz)

901 O'Reilly's a self-aggrandizing twit. One thing I admire about conservatives is that we recognize idiots like him, who are ostensibly "on our side", for what they are. Name-and-town-name-and-town-name-and-town my ass.

Posted by: ToursLepantoVienna at January 07, 2014 05:41 PM (6NIyO)

902 I just did a slow clap. One breathing sentient life form comprehended this. Thank you. And for you, Mr. HIV-rots-the-brain, in terms that your Kaposi's Sarcoma-addled brain might be able to understand if your T-cells are up to it: Cleaning the bathroom is much more than scrubbing the toilet. Put a crew to work cleaning the bathroom, and the toilet gets scrubbed along the way. Send somebody to scrub the toilet, and there are still a sink, a floor, and a bathtub that needs attention.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:41 PM (V3kRK)

903 I'm out folks. Try not to kill one another.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 07, 2014 05:41 PM (U1Tts)

904 >>>classic libertarian talking point right there SOMALIA!

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 05:42 PM (KHo8t)

905 I didn't say anything about Somalia, but basically I just think official cultural nonjudgmentalism/their economic vision is not a good mix

Posted by: the kid at January 07, 2014 05:44 PM (TP6sz)

906 904 X at January 07, 2014 09:42 PM (KHo8t)

YOU SANK MAH BATTLESHIP!

TIMMAH!

//TIMMAH

Hey sport speaking of Somalia it is a testament to pro-drug culture...

great success story there, but see the Sven "Fuck it! To The Moon!" Caucus will engage in outreach to our day zombies and subsidize their second, third, fourth, fifth and tenth doses right to their door...

3 bowl limits are for pussies.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 05:44 PM (TE35l)

907 One breathing sentient life form comprehends this. ---- Oh. I may have misled you... Lace Wigs Nike Shox Lace Wigs

Posted by: Jenny Sells Lace Wigs at January 07, 2014 05:45 PM (v/2zq)

908 * "FTL, do you genuinely not get that this isn't a choice between "roll back federal overreach" and "roll back marijuana prohibition"? Marijuana prohibition is part of federal overreach. It's like you're saying " Don't scrub the toilet, clean the bathroom! Priorities!" No one on ace wants to *just* roll back marijuana laws." *

BULLSHIT

That is exactly what the libertine-arians (X and roadrunner) want to do.

"Gimme my single issue NOW. "

How long has the back and forth on spending, abortion, immigration, foreign aid, military, reducing government, etc. etc.  been going on?

"But I gotta cut in line and get MY spliff on NOW. "

Immaturity and idealism. Whiskey and car keys.



Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 05:45 PM (5ikDv)

909 "BULLSHIT That is exactly what the libertine-arians (X and roadrunner) want to do" @noone Have you actually read anything we have said, or is mindless ad hom your default?

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 05:47 PM (Y0Z+z)

910 And of course, FTL, if we can't get a crew together right now to clean the bathroom, we should yell and scream if someone tries to start by cleaning the toilet. CLEAN ALL THE THINGS BUT ONLY SIMULTANEOUSLY!!!! Seriously, if you don't want to lift a finger for this, don't. No one is telling you to. But I will say you look like an ass when you spew vitriol at people who are supporting the principle you claim to hold, just because they're not starting where you would start.

Posted by: Jenny Sells Lace Wigs at January 07, 2014 05:49 PM (v/2zq)

911 how have you opposed Obamacare noone? are you boycotting it? are you in the foxhole with me?

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 05:50 PM (KHo8t)

912 Mindless ad hom?

Dude , you and Pete, your X man have done nothing BUT ad hominem calling everybody who doesn't think legalizing drugs INSTANTLY is the best approach is a Socialist, statist, fascist, Puritan.

GFY


Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 05:50 PM (5ikDv)

913 "Hey sport speaking of Somalia it is a testament to pro-drug culture..." The Somali pirates also own guns, so guns are bad too? They also have boats, we need a War on Boats.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 05:50 PM (Y0Z+z)

914 905 the kid at January 07, 2014 09:44 PM (TP6sz)

I respect your critique on what I would call Libertine not libertarian thought Kid, the problem is that the state got out of the "shit it is supposed to do" business and got into the winner and loser picking business.

Once upon a time the state could be trusted to use some judgement because the goals it was exerting coercive power on were more valid than "social justice" minor things like at various times: national defense, general health from plague, imperial conquest, maritime security, and sword and shield of western civ.....

Now to hear Jungle John Kerry tell it the US is the Glee Mafia enforcer and Palestinia's bumper for bumper cars...

My point is, if the price I have to pay to crash this monster more quickly and ideally start over with baby bells is an infantile stoner state so be it....

like I was telling the gays the other day "you cannot force me to give a fuck about your sex life" the pro-intoxicant set cannot force me to imbibe...

long enough timeline yes they'll wreck the nation probably if history is an indicator BUT I'll get some entertainment out of it and if I work, prepare, and raise my kid right my brood will come out better in the end after the burning time.

Pedal to the floor.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 05:50 PM (TE35l)

915 But I will say you look like an ass when you spew vitriol at people who are supporting the principle you claim to hold, just because they're not starting where you would start. Yet here you are spewing vitriol at me for advocating that we start where I want to start.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:51 PM (V3kRK)

916 913 Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 09:50 PM (Y0Z+z)

1) as has been pointed out guns ARE under attack

2) Ogabe did in fact functionally outlaw boats during the shutdown...

keep on plugging champ...

I am on your side....pedal to the floor.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 05:52 PM (TE35l)

917

The Somali pirates also own guns, so guns are bad too? They also have boats, we need a War on Boats.

They also have moms! Should we have a WAR ON MOMS????!!11!!

Hey this conflation shit is fun!!!

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 05:52 PM (5ikDv)

918 "Mindless ad hom? Dude , you and Pete, your X man have done nothing BUT ad hominem calling everybody who doesn't think legalizing drugs INSTANTLY is the best approach is a Socialist, statist, fascist, Puritan." Look through the comments and see who is calling the opposition every variation of "fag" imaginable, while saying that people who want to legalize drugs are evil hippies who don't care for freedom.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 05:54 PM (Y0Z+z)

919 They also have boats, we need a War on Boats. We don't have that yet. We'd need to get some legislation passed to make that happen. What we do have is a war on drugs that criminalizes pot. To get pot decriminalized, we need to get legislation into effect that makes that happen. Sorry, dude. I have other priorities. If you get behind my other priorities, you will have your decriminalization of pot as a consequence. Do you want that? Or are you saying that I need to drop my priorities to help you get yours?

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:55 PM (V3kRK)

920 917 noone, really at January 07, 2014 09:52 PM (5ikDv)

PIV Avenger lady says penises are the bane of mankind...of course I was about to give the moms a reprieve since they are rape victims in her world BUT that probably means they have XY cooties...

death to XY bearers and their concubines!

//PIV Avenger

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 05:55 PM (TE35l)

921 Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 09:54 PM (Y0Z+z) "Eat a big bag of dicks" Search the thread for it. That was you that started it, you fucking sodomite.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:56 PM (V3kRK)

922 >>>Sorry, dude. I have other priorities. If you get behind my other priorities, you will have your decriminalization of pot as a consequence. are you boycotting Obamacare? or collaborating?

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 05:56 PM (KHo8t)

923 while saying that people who want to legalize drugs are evil hippies who don't care for freedom.

Bloody fucking hell.

Legalizing ALL drugs ? Or legalizing POT?


I swear , I WAS half convinced that weed does not have an bad effect on brain cells until tonite...

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 05:57 PM (5ikDv)

924 "How is marijuana part of "federal overreach" any more than any other banned drug? And saying it's not as bad doesn't have anything to do with that.

when did the online conservative movement become a bunch of adolescent libtarian purists"

...when some potheads dressed up their agenda in a libertarian outfit and demanded the destruction of real conserviatve

I am STILL waiting on the pot legalization crowd to demand the end of the FDA.


"If you help me get rid of big government, then big government and the pot laws go away. " Why is this hard?

Get rid of Big Govt FIRST: Repeal the New Deal, the FDA, sarbanes-oxley, obamacare and 100,000 pages of Federal regulation. THEN end the pot laws.

If you repeal the pot laws first, BIG GOVT WILL STAY.

Posted by: Zombie Commie Walter Cronkite at January 07, 2014 05:57 PM (oNqbW)

925 are you boycotting Obamacare? or collaborating? Get behind my priorities, and you get your smoke as a consequence.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:57 PM (V3kRK)

926 >>>Search the thread for it. That was you that started it, you fucking sodomite. he didn't direct it you. he directed it at me, humorously.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 05:58 PM (KHo8t)

927 "Search the thread for it. That was you that started it, you fucking sodomite." Nope. Use the handy search feature on your browser, I didn't say that. But in the process you managed to demonstrate my point of how mindlessly offensive you are.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 05:58 PM (Y0Z+z)

928 If pot is legal, that should make it easier for employers and other groups to test folks for it's use, since it's no longer self incriminating if you test positive for smoking it.   

Just because it's legal doesn't mean you've got the right to show up to work stoned, any more than showing up to work drunk is OK.

Perhaps being on the public dole and unemployment, etc, ought to require being clean...?

Posted by: Seipherd at January 07, 2014 05:58 PM (AortR)

929 *PIV Avenger lady*

That one is a case study in the rationalization of insane , but fervent beliefs.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 05:59 PM (5ikDv)

930 Nope. Use the handy search feature on your browser, I didn't say that. But in the process you managed to demonstrate my point of how mindlessly offensive you are. Shit. My apologies. I was wrong.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 05:59 PM (V3kRK)

931 Perhaps being on the public dole and unemployment, etc, ought to require being clean...? Ask Florida.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 06:00 PM (V3kRK)

932 >>>Ask Florida. you missed the point.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 06:01 PM (KHo8t)

933 "Ask Florida." Nope, I'm staying out of this mess.

Posted by: Florida at January 07, 2014 06:01 PM (Y0Z+z)

934 So if we legalize pot, the pro-pot people will bail from the liberty coalition, and it will be harder for you to get your goals accomplished? Hmm. Let's try that with "pro-lifers" in place of "pro-pot people."

Pro-lifers include a lot of Catholics. And because I'm one of them, I can tell you that beyond the abortion issue, Catholics break many different was on other issues. Many of them don't follow the typical conservative positions on welfare or immigration, for example. I'm sure you know that.

But for now, their #1 issue matches them with the GOP. Make that issue go away, and they might start voting for Democrats. You won't get your low tax rates or your secure border.

So I guess we should say "abortion stays until we secure the border, lower marginal tax rates, and dismantle every brick of the welfare state," right?

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 06:04 PM (QB4Dm)

935 the point is pot is illegal in Florida so the state can't test for it because it would be self-incrimination. So apparently we are paying welfare $ for your and BTW's desire to keep it illegal.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 06:04 PM (KHo8t)

936 Wow, the pot must really be getting to me, FTL, because I coulda sworn you were the one calling people faggots and disgusting variations thereof. But, hey, I'm the one spewing vitriol by pointing it out.

Posted by: Jenny Sells Lace Wigs at January 07, 2014 06:04 PM (LMT1z)

937 Look through the comments and see who is calling the opposition every variation of "fag" imaginable, while saying that people who want to legalize drugs are evil hippies who don't care for freedom.

Look through the comments and tell me how many times you and racer X have blasted someone for different "mindthoughts" about "Your Precioussssss" .


Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 06:04 PM (5ikDv)

938 you missed the point. Please explain the point to me. Or, don't. My point is that potheads will start trying to claim to be covered under the ADA just like drunks have been trying to for the last fifteen years. And, since pot use is ethnically skewed, the potheads will make much more headway than the drunks have been able to thus far.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 06:05 PM (V3kRK)

939 "Look through the comments and tell me how many times you and racer X have blasted someone for different "mindthoughts" about "Your Precioussssss" ." You have my Precious? tricksy hobbitses...

Posted by: Gollum at January 07, 2014 06:06 PM (Y0Z+z)

940 >>>And, since pot use is ethnically skewed good lord.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 06:06 PM (KHo8t)

941 "My point is that potheads will start trying to claim to be covered under the ADA just like drunks have been trying to for the last fifteen years."

Gee, maybe we should outlaw alcohol then.

I mean, if we want people to be on the side of liberty, let's make the state as oppressive as possible until they agree to repeal the New Deal and Obamacare. Then when that's accomplished, the loser boozehounds can have their precious merlots back.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 06:08 PM (QB4Dm)

942 I have called people statist on this thread, but only because they want to impose their will at the point of a government gun.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 06:08 PM (KHo8t)

943 929 noone, really at January 07, 2014 09:59 PM (5ikDv)

She votes, and if you check her party is a lot closer to her ideas than mine is to uh mine....

something to ponder about why we lose.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 06:09 PM (TE35l)

944 Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 10:04 PM (QB4Dm) So you are saying that if Roe v. Wade is invalidated, then the RC vote will be free to fall back on other issues that benefit the democrat party? And I am saying that if pot is legalized, then the potheads will be free to fall back on other issues that likely will benefit the democrat party. Thanks so much. I somehow missed that analogy. I'm starting to gain a real appreciation for pot logic (not meant ironically in the least) and charitable pot interpretation.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 06:10 PM (V3kRK)

945 @942 I have called people statist on this thread, but only because they want to impose their will at the point of a government gun.

Ace of Spades. Hotbed of Big GOVERNMENT FASCISM.


Teh Stoooopid . It Burns.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 06:10 PM (5ikDv)

946 "pot use is ethnically skewed"

El. Oh. El.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 06:11 PM (QB4Dm)

947 Ok guys I'm out. I have a 160 mile round-trip commute through the Midwest snowpocalypse wasteland and need to eat some birdseed and go to sleep.

Posted by: Roadrunner at January 07, 2014 06:11 PM (Y0Z+z)

948 good lord. Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 10:06 PM (KHo8t) I worked around HR for over fifteen years in a previous life. There is an ethnic skew to marijuana use. It's not something that needs a T-test to discern.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 06:12 PM (V3kRK)

949 "Ace of Spades. Hotbed of Big GOVERNMENT FASCISM."

The great thing about AoS is that they let people like you post fascist opinions here so we're reminded that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 06:12 PM (QB4Dm)

950 945 noone, really at January 07, 2014 10:10 PM (5ikDv)

I am a notorious statist that's why I post AR 3-24 and invoke the red case...

because "statist"...

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 06:12 PM (TE35l)

951 I mean, if we want people to be on the side of liberty, let's make the state as oppressive as possible until they agree... ---- The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Posted by: Jenny Sells Lace Wigs at January 07, 2014 06:13 PM (v/2zq)

952 "I worked around HR for over fifteen years in a previous life."

Please tell us more anecdotes from your illustrious and storied career in human resources.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 06:13 PM (QB4Dm)

953 @943
She votes

Ugh. Nightmares impending.

I don't believe that we lose.

I believe that we lost.

Hell, Legalize Everything!

Hard to smoke ashes.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 06:15 PM (5ikDv)

954 949 Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 10:12 PM (QB4Dm)

I thought we let anyone without pants in no questions asked....

Don't worry Pete your Wacky Tabakky is not only moral it is the most moral thing and the most important cornerstone of liberty ever and all mankind will be the better off for its legality.

I know that what the American recovery has been missing to get the OOM back in BOOM baby....

legalized intoxicants.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 06:15 PM (TE35l)

955 Wow, the pot must really be getting to me, FTL, because I coulda sworn you were the one calling people faggots and disgusting variations thereof. But, hey, I'm the one spewing vitriol by pointing it out. Yes. I was the one. It was a mistake on my part. I conflated two people on the other side of the argument. All my fagbaiting was meant for that faggot little bitch, Masturbatin' Pete.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 06:15 PM (V3kRK)

956 "So you are saying that if Roe v. Wade is invalidated, then the RC vote will be free to fall back on other issues that benefit the democrat party?"

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. So following your simultaneous-all-or-nothing approach, Roe vs. Wade gets overturned on the same day that every other liberal law, regulation, and court decisions is repealed/overturned, and not a day sooner.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 06:16 PM (QB4Dm)

957 sven is not statist. he just wants the government to use violence against pot smokers.

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 06:17 PM (KHo8t)

958 "All my fagbaiting was meant for that faggot little bitch, Masturbatin' Pete."

Charming.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 06:18 PM (QB4Dm)

959 @sven

No shit.

Smoking weed is the highest form of Patriotism

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 06:20 PM (5ikDv)

960 953 noone, really at January 07, 2014 10:15 PM (5ikDv)

That's why I am "ALL ABOARD!" the sooner we wreck the long term solvency of the Federal Government as rendered the sooner we can figure out what comes next.

We're NOT a serious nation anymore, and hey MAYBE that will be perfectly okay....it is not like the world misses a powerful Holland...

I happen to have thought we had a more vital role in the world than most nation-states but the NEA has succeeded in convincing the kids we are the source of all planetary evil.

Time to moveon.org and embrace the suck...

Pedal to the floor....let PIV Avenger show me a healthy society that won't procreate....let the stoners show me pot is the key to an economic powerhouse...let the democrats show me that a lack of guns and endless unemployment checks are prosperity....

me while they are showing me I am gonna be getting ready for the collapse.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 06:20 PM (TE35l)

961 And it would be great if one of you stoners could delineate whether or not this is a war on the war on drugs or just a war on the war on pot.


Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 06:22 PM (5ikDv)

962 957 X at January 07, 2014 10:17 PM (KHo8t)

Hey genius what part of "ounces, pounds, or fucking tons?" do you not understand...?

I am advocating having the USPS deliver to your door so you moral paragons do not have to drive all the intoxicant of your choice you could ever desire...even if totally at taxpayer cost....

Holy God man I am doing everything but giving your Reggie stick a Barry....

what more do you want sunshine?

All I ask is that you not be a statist fascist fuck and not legalize it all.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 06:23 PM (TE35l)

963 "me while they are showing me I am gonna be getting ready for the collapse."

From now on, I'm picturing all of your posts being spoken by MacGruber. They just fit SO WELL.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 06:23 PM (QB4Dm)

964 Please tell us more anecdotes from your illustrious and storied career in human resources. Not illustrious, but what stories do you want to hear about? Do you want to hear about a blue-collar workforce with a white/black/hispanic ratio of roughly 30/50/20 subject to random urinalysis testing? There is no punchline because that shit wasn't funny. The ratio of pissing hot was right around 2/70/28, and the company was scared to act because of it. So they doubled-down on their controls to cover themselves in court, and the first test after the controls were implemented read 0/85/15. There is an ethnic component to pot use.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 06:24 PM (V3kRK)

965 >>>There is an ethnic skew to marijuana use. you do know squares are not an actual ethnicity, right?

Posted by: X at January 07, 2014 06:25 PM (KHo8t)

966 Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. So following your simultaneous-all-or-nothing approach, Roe vs. Wade gets overturned on the same day that every other liberal law, regulation, and court decisions is repealed/overturned, and not a day sooner. You hanged yourself, you idiot. Recognize it. No shoes, no shirt, no service.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 06:25 PM (V3kRK)

967 you do know squares are not an actual ethnicity, right?

oh bloody hell...

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 06:26 PM (5ikDv)

968 "And it would be great if one of you stoners could delineate whether or not this is a war on the war on drugs or just a war on the war on pot."

Start with pot, state-by-state, and see how it goes.

I'm of two minds about harder drugs: Yeah, they're more dangerous than marijuana, but part of the danger flows from the fact that they can't be produced legally. No one goes blind from bad Jack Daniel's. People do get poisoned by bad crack and meth. People get HIV because they have to share needles. People do take the wrong dose of various things because they're not sure what they're buying. Legalization would solve those problems.

But I'm not sure. Pot first. Let's see how that goes.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 06:26 PM (QB4Dm)

969 FTL:
 
Since I'm obviously a dullard, you're going to have to lay it out for me.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 06:27 PM (QB4Dm)

970 963 Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 10:23 PM (QB4Dm)

No idea what you're getting at...oh wait that fifth rate SNL send-up of MacGuyver meets McBain?

Yeah maybe...Pete I notice you did not explain to me how this aids the economy....

It's okay I think I have it figured out..... Frito-Lay futures...

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 06:27 PM (TE35l)

971 Legalization would solve those problems.

How? By letting the fascist government regulate it?


Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 06:28 PM (5ikDv)

972 "How? By letting the fascist government regulate it?"

Having drugs regulated the way that the government regulates alcohol would be an improvement, yes. Since I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, I could live with that.

But we might not need those mechanisms. Simple stuff, like being able to sue the manufacturers, would increase the safety of the product.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 06:31 PM (QB4Dm)

973 971 noone, really at January 07, 2014 10:28 PM (5ikDv)

Well we seem to be a bit murky on that....

see it is like Ace upthread pretending the dope smokers are not in your face about smoking at the LA Library, on buses, etc etc

it is legal, but not unrestricted, but it is untested, but it is not unregulated etc etc etc

I have a question do the stoners get to keep trying to up the THC in the wakky tabakky....

I had a stoner from California used to work at the Pizza Joint I ran in college  called him "beaker"....

Beaker liked some pot that smelled literally like shit but he claimed it was THC heavy.....

so I dubbed it rocket brand....

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 06:32 PM (TE35l)

974 Since I'm obviously a dullard, you're going to have to lay it out for me. I am a lapsed Catholic. The reason I am a lapsed Catholic is because I walked out of a homily during the 2004 election season during which a priest made a point of speaking highly of Michael J. Fox's courage in the face of Parkinson's Disease immediately after Fox's anti-Bush commercial condemning GWB's embryonic stem cell ban. That was that commercial that he filmed after laying off his meds for a while so he could shake like an elephant's vibrator. The parish pastor's take on his commie priest's homily was the standard, "You can't be more catholic than the Pope." All those pro-life Catholics? Most of them vote democrat already. Tour the parking lot at Christmas or Easter.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 06:37 PM (V3kRK)

975 "beaker" - heh.

Well, I'm married so circular logic in defense of personal pet issues while ignoring the big picture is something for which I don't have to go online.

Buenos Noches, Sven, FTL, BTW, et. al.

and Muchos Doritos Locos to the Pot Posse 

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 07, 2014 06:37 PM (5ikDv)

976 anyway wife reset the bed on me sorry...

"rocket brand"....

Since the "fine moral brave upstanding true patriot heroic" growers have been fucking with cultivating wildly divergent THC intoxicant levels...

are smokers allowed to get the old strength smokes back that they phased out in the 60s?

Can alcohol drinkers get back more potent beer, wine, and whiskey?

Why is Sojou from Korea restricted as formaldahyde when it is like everclear plus?

I cannot comprehend why we are legalizing an intoxicant that is you know "illegal" when we should be removing restrictions from existing intoxicants and other "great patriotic" habits...?

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 06:40 PM (TE35l)

977 Beaker liked some pot that smelled literally like shit but he claimed it was THC heavy..... The first time I ever went to Starbucks (early '90s), I got a cup of their special of the day. It was some Kenyan coffee. It smelled literally like shit to me, but I needed my coffee. It didn't taste bad, but I have never been back on purpose.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 06:41 PM (V3kRK)

978 So you're a lapsed Catholic because a priest wasn't faithful to the Catechism?

In other words, your response to your disgust at disobeying Catholic teaching was... to distance yourself from the Catholic Church?

Why didn't you just find a new parish?

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 06:44 PM (QB4Dm)

979 Why is Sojou from Korea restricted as formaldahyde when it is like everclear plus? Soju is 70-proof gin-ish vodka made from sweet potatoes. They have an export version available in Virginia ABC stores. When I was in HS in Korea, it was 500 won (about $0.35) for a 500ml bottle of JinRo with the little frog logo. The export stuff doesn't taste near as good. Must be missing the formaldehyde.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 06:45 PM (V3kRK)

980 Why didn't you just find a new parish? Keep to the point. Tour the church parking lot come Easter. Count the number of Obama bumper stickers.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 06:46 PM (V3kRK)

981 977 FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 10:41 PM (V3kRK)

Well you know the highest civic virtue extant today or so I've been told is "tolerance"...well I mean except for tolerance for Duck Dynasty stars, Christians, non-Keynesian economists, veterans, the Welsh, Scandis, people who fold the roll over not under, etc etc etc

so if people want to imbibe with things that smell like fecal emanations...who am I to judge?

I'm just wondering, again, why places like Starbucks get to import and overprice their shit coffee but another Coffee house with lower prices is attacked for the "wrong non fair trade hot choco choco plantations' product"?

I guess what bothers me, and makes me leery despite my embracing their platform is I don't trust the Ganja nation not to move the goalposts....

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 06:46 PM (TE35l)

982 When I was in HS in Korea, it was 500 won (about $0.35) for a 500ml bottle of JinRo with the little frog logo. The export stuff doesn't taste near as good. Must be missing the formaldehyde. Shit. My bad. It was a 12oz (355ml) bottle.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 06:47 PM (V3kRK)

983 979 FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 10:45 PM (V3kRK)

Guys processing back into Fort Bliss from the Happy Hongghoul used to bring the stuff they sell there that is 98%...

the boys called it Soju or whatever...I don't know I was a wino at the time.

Anyway it tasted pure enough they used to make Jello shots or flavored it with gatorade....

lit them up...and I know they had to smuggle what they were bringing back because I helped one guy unpack it.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 06:49 PM (TE35l)

984 I'm just wondering, again, why places like Starbucks get to import and overprice their shit coffee but another Coffee house with lower prices is attacked for the "wrong non fair trade hot choco choco plantations' product"? DC area, here. Fact is that the smart ones all claim "fair trade" regardless of where they source their stuff. It's like labeling food "organic."

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 06:49 PM (V3kRK)

985 I can't recall any at my parish. I can't say that I looked at every car, but that would have jumped out at me.

But what's your point here? That some/many Catholics would alighn with the Democrats but for the abortion issue (and maybe gay marriage)? Yeah, I agree. So... what's the right approach on the abortion issue? Wait to get Roe vs. Wade overturned until after you've gotten all the other stuff on your conservative wish list?

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 06:49 PM (QB4Dm)

986 978 Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 10:44 PM (QB4Dm)

Uh because the problem was with not meeting moral obligations and a lack of policing?

The Church relies a lot on the blind devotion of its faithful and works very hard not to see the cafeteria crowd's hubris or hypocrisy.

Now we get to add in a damn near Marxist Pope?

I think the RC does ok without me, and I do just ducky without the RC...pretty sure FTL and the others of we apostates here will hang on.

The RC has established it is part of Democrat Inc, I am not a part of Democrat Inc I was looking for fellowship towards God and execution of a worthy and empowering doctrine.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 06:53 PM (TE35l)

987 Guys processing back into Fort Bliss from the Happy Hongghoul used to bring the stuff they sell there that is 98%... I'll have to check with relatives on that. When I was there, most of the brands topped out at 70 proof, and some were as low as 50. That made the black market really hot. Besides soju, there was a rural moonshine concoction generically called mokkoli. The term is supposed to mean rice wine, but the AFRTS warnings about it were that it could mean anything from rice wine to distilled rice wine to distilled rice wine fortified with antifreeze.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 06:54 PM (V3kRK)

988 "Now we get to add in a damn near Marxist Pope?"

Your ideas intrigue me and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I also like the part where you consider the "cafeteria crowd" to be other people and not, you know, yourself.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 06:55 PM (QB4Dm)

989 987 FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 10:54 PM (V3kRK)

That may be it... I was not paying attention but it was sorta bottled looking moonshinish.

Brown hard clayish looking jug....weird stopper.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 06:56 PM (TE35l)

990 But what's your point here? That some/many Catholics would alighn with the Democrats but for the abortion issue (and maybe gay marriage)? Some/many Catholics align with Democrats in spite of the abortion issue (and maybe gay marriage). Yeah, I agree. So... what's the right approach on the abortion issue? Wait to get Roe vs. Wade overturned until after you've gotten all the other stuff on your conservative wish list? You tell me the right approach, please. Should Roe v. Wade before or after pot gets decriminalized?

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 06:57 PM (V3kRK)

991 988 Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2014 10:55 PM (QB4Dm)

Guess you missed where I called myself an apostate there Pete...?

It's okay I give about as much a fuck about the moral judgement of a sect of a faith that found no problem with Nanzi Pelosi or Tester Kennedy as I do about whether or not OFA types like me.

As a matter of fact it is damn near precisely the same.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 06:58 PM (TE35l)

992 Brown hard clayish looking jug....weird stopper. Sounds like a bottling plant version of Mokkoli to me, although the Soju name could have been appropriated. Just because the convenience store version was 70 proof in my day does not mean that they didn't take it to Everclear levels since then.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 06:59 PM (V3kRK)

993 990 FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 10:57 PM (V3kRK)

Nothing comes before pot my friend.

Basically the idea here is we have to either cede the abortion point and uh "so-cons" or at a minimum force them to shut up and then we'll reap the reward of getting a bunch of folk who are so concerned about the mortal sin of abortion that they vote for a party that is allied with a woman like Penis in Vagina is Rape Avenger....

you know folks of stout and enduring good judgement who cleave to a moral code?

so 1st we legalize Pot, second we legalize abortion or outlaw it or something.... then after those people flee back to donkey we win and get freedom.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 07:01 PM (TE35l)

994 Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 11:01 PM (TE35l) I can completely see your arguments and understand where you come from. Between sports physicals and random screening from before I was old enough even to think of doing drugs to just a couple of years ago, I never had the opportunity to do drugs. In a way, I'm too old to give a shit. That said, I don't think it's the federal government's business. But the federal government thinks pot is it's business. Oh well. There's a lot of other shit far more important to me that the federal government claims to be within its purview. I'll worry about those things and let the potheads come join my side (or not) in the meantime.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 07:10 PM (V3kRK)

995 As Maet points out on the ONT CO potheads are effectively ceding their ability to buy further firearms...

and now the mule hidden agenda rears its head....

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

996 Shit. Should've been "its business" and "claims improperly to be within its purview"

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 07:12 PM (V3kRK)

997 As Maet points out on the ONT CO potheads are effectively ceding their ability to buy further firearms... Serious question. All joking and posturing (on my part) aside: Is that really a bad thing?

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 07:13 PM (V3kRK)

998 1000!

Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at January 07, 2014 07:19 PM (Xfl0F)

999 I wouldn't hire Masturbating Pete to mow my lawn. I'd rather not depend on substance abusers in denial.

Posted by: Roc Ingersol at January 07, 2014 07:19 PM (3zlTf)

1000 997 FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 11:13 PM (V3kRK)

Yeah it is sorta.  They are gonna get butthurt and blame the GOP it is the way things work so they will further embrace Libertine style mule libertarianism...you know where you are free to receive other folks' wealth?  I never underestimate the idiocy of the electorate.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 07:21 PM (TE35l)

1001 @  997

  I will answer in complete seriousness--not at all a bad thing.

  Weapons and drugs do not mix.  Weapons and alcohol do not mix.

   I won't insult your intelligence with an unnecessary explanation, good sir.

Posted by: irongrampa at January 07, 2014 07:21 PM (SAMxH)

1002 Is this mike on? Tap tap Ahem Pot should be illegal and users should get treatment before jail Dealers should get mandatory life ****drops mike****

Posted by: Navypopojoe at January 07, 2014 07:24 PM (u0HjB)

1003 Posted by: irongrampa at January 07, 2014 11:21 PM (SAMxH) Sir, that is where I was headed with my question.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 07:24 PM (V3kRK)

1004 So, I heard you all are having a party over here?

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 07, 2014 07:24 PM (LSDdO)

1005 1001 irongrampa at January 07, 2014 11:21 PM (SAMxH)

I don't think anyone would argue, they are trying to create an embittered class of former gunners there IG.

CO just shoved "no" up the gungrabber nutbag's asses, this will calved off some maybe a BUNCH.

That means it is a "bad" but a foreseeable one.

While not thrilled that the "Legalize IT!" crowd got their cookie I am less than thrilled that they are being set up to be played off against the 2d amendment.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 07:27 PM (TE35l)

1006
 @  1003

    Thought as much.

    Never in my life have I used either running weapons.

    We did have, in my service days, 2 incidents in my unit of MJ use--one at base involving guard duty--clown toked  up and got caught.

   Another was in the field and near got several of us killed--this was in a combat zone.

     So, no way does it mix.

Posted by: irongrampa at January 07, 2014 07:30 PM (SAMxH)

1007 1006 irongrampa at January 07, 2014 11:30 PM (SAMxH)

When I was at a nightfire range we had some idiots who still had LSD trapped in their fat....

they went fetal from the tracers.

Like I always say life and soldiering is hard enough sober, why do it screwed up voluntarily?

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 07, 2014 07:34 PM (TE35l)

1008 Another was in the field and near got several of us killed--this was in a combat zone. In my service days, we had frequent random testing. THC was the one that could be detected long after use, so the soldiers who pissed hot for it were generally considered soldiers who wanted out in the peacetime Army.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 07, 2014 07:40 PM (V3kRK)

1009 I heard a rumor on the ONT that there was a still-lively pot thread going on, and I said to myself, self? go hustle some hits. 'Cause I usually wouldn't brag about... Head Shop Comix LEGAL AND SAFE! But your mother might not approve. Webworks — comix mostly — which examine the appeal of indulgences and the consequences of desire. And you don't have to be stoned to enjoy them! (Which is not to say you'll get the joke in any case!) http://mindfulwebworks.com/headshop/home.html It was a phase I was going through, artistically.... And donation buttons are on every page; help me save up for legalization. (In about 20 years in my home state.)

Posted by: mindful webworker at January 07, 2014 09:16 PM (vzfrq)

1010 150 FUCK IT WE'LL SMOKE IT LIVE!




^why I love this blog^

Posted by: Heh at January 08, 2014 02:44 AM (U4z8a)

1011 Does this mean it's ok to smoke cigarettes now? I mean, we all know there are no carcinogens in pot, right?

Posted by: DL at January 08, 2014 06:11 AM (vDDnO)

1012 "My problem with weed legalization is that the electorate will kill more brain cells and be even more overmedicated and disconnected. Freedom requires a moral, engaged intelligent electorate. Posted by: noone, really at January 07, 2014 05:32 PM (5ikDv) " My problem with your solution of using overbearing government control as a path to more freedom by limiting choices is... that's a really stupid position. If we push for less freedom we'll get more freedom? The goal to limiting government power is to make sure they have more power? I'm unconvinced... please show me where giving a government more power resulted in less government power and more freedom; and where letting people have more freedom was bad for freedom. I guess I missed those days in history classes when this happened in the past making this a rational plan for the future. Or it's never worked before, but by god this time it'll totally work? If your goal is less government and more freedom. and your path there is more government control and less freedom... please explain what you consider the rest of the intermediary steps. I'm not seeing them.

Posted by: gekkobear at January 08, 2014 08:07 AM (HZiic)

1013 The argument "Booze is bad and its legal so we should legalize more substances" is idiotic, but unsurprising. If alcohol is destructive, damaging, and harmful why on earth would anyone argue that we should legalize more stuff like that?
And the point about stupid voters is valid, but at this point irrelevant: better we have more bad government and voters than fewer at this point, there's no turning things around.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 08, 2014 09:24 AM (zfY+H)

1014 My problem with your solution of using overbearing government control as a path to more freedom by limiting choices is... that's a really stupid position.

If we push for less freedom we'll get more freedom?


Where in the HELL did you read that I am in favor of "more government control" over theprecious weed?


Note to self: THC also apparently affects reading comprehension.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 08, 2014 10:00 AM (5ikDv)

1015 Let me clear something up for you, GB.

I am a grown adult semi-functional human capable of holding an opinion about a behavior while holding a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VIEW of what I believe is government's role.

I think marijuana and other drug abuse is a stupid decision that makes people disconnected and numb and will discourage it every time I am asked about

I think that an 18 year can make his or her own decisions about what they do to their bodies and that government has no role in preventing the stupid from self abuse, SHORT OF HURTING OR COSTING OTHERS.


See how that works?

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 08, 2014 10:14 AM (5ikDv)

1016 And it would be great if one of you stoners could delineate whether or not this is a war on the war on drugs or just a war on the war on pot.

Still unanswered.

And I would ask the the cutesy "scratch a drug warrior , fascist blah blah blah" punk if he holds the same view of an officer on a drug raid at a meth lab?

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 08, 2014 10:25 AM (5ikDv)

1017 Can we legalize making nitrocellulose too? Because, freedom.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at January 08, 2014 01:28 PM (5xmd7)

1018 & and &

Posted by: Cthulhu Core™ [/i] [/b] at January 10, 2014 07:33 PM (tlwVg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
714kb generated in CPU 0.3393, elapsed 0.5615 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3817 seconds, 1146 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 34768
  • Files: 378
  • Bytes: 916.3M
  • CPU Time: 42:18
  • Queries: 1006801

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5953260

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0