Little boy, when the doctor installed the stupid switch on you after you were born, did he tell your mother that it could be turned off?
Yes, indeed, and if it were just the states determining drug policy, I’d have no problem with it at all. I’d much rather the states determined their own policy, because they’re in a much better position to do so. However, as Cabbage pointed out, the Federal government has a nasty habit of refusing to let states legalize anything in any form - even when people are dying. If you doubt me, please have a look at www.petertrial.com .
Of course, I doubt you will, AvenueB. You’ve shown quite a propensity for vomiting out the War on Drug propaganda you’ve been spoonfed all of your infantile life. The gateway theory you were masturbating over earlier has been long debunked. The misery your neighbors live in is a direct consequence of our nation’s policy of drug prohibition (as well as, no doubt, the tragedy of having to live next to you).
Oh, that hurts. No, really. ow. :rolleyes:
You, know, AvenueB, since I didn’t say Flame One about your grammar or spelling, maybe you could untie your balls long enough to realize there’s no need for you to be defensive about it. I’m much more appalled by your ignorance, combativeness, and complete inability to allow your neighbors to live their own lives - even if that means fucking them up.
Not really. 28 U.S.C. 841 sets forth the general prohibited acts involving controlled substances. Subsection (a) of that section states that it is unlawful to “manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance.” That pretty much covers anyone selling dope. In addition, section 844, entitled “Penalties for simple possession,” states “it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance . . .,” which pretty much covers everyone who isn’t a dealer. There is no law that I know of that prohibits “use” of a controlled substance.
To lay people, this is legal pedantry since it’s hard to “use” a product without “possessing” it. But since the standard set by the board’s Acceptable Use Policy concerns violations of law, a discussion about how people use pot is legally distiguishable from a discussion about people obtain pot. Only the latter would be a discussion about violating the law.
Jeez. I could play a round of golf on all the holes in that logic. First of all, as I mentioned above, there is nothing technically unlawful about a person using pot as distinguished from possessing it. Second, explaining to someone how a product can be used more efficiently is not the same thing as encouraging someone to use it. In the martial arts threads on these boards, there was talk of what moves would be most effective in a fight. Nobody could read those threads and decide that this board encourages people to go out and get into fights so that they can try these moves out. To encourage something means to actively promote it. Nobody on these boards are going out telling other people that they should smoke pot or extolling the virtues of dope in an effort to persuade you to do something you otherwise wouldn’t do. Everyone that I’ve read here is only talking about what they themselves have done, and are not offering any editorial comment about whether a person should or should not smoke.
Third, you fail to grasp the concept that “aiding and abetting” a crime requires more than just talking about someone else committing a crime. It requires someone to take an affirmative step to encourage or facilitate the crime, or to help someone conceal the results of that crime from the authorities. If this board were assisting someone in obtaining pot, you’d have a legitimate point. But it isn’t. And you don’t.
And finally,
Holy Biosphere! How’d they fit 16 million people in a lab, much less keep them there for 30 years? Just imagine, 30 years of painfully slow and meandering conversations, giggling, and munchies.
AvenueB, learn to spell while you take that “A Clue 101” night course.
Pot leads to harder drugs, because people who use harder drugs once used pot? Pot and alcohol are generally the first mind/mood-altering substances people use. The connection you’re attempting to draw from that fact makes you a dimwit.
I bet most of those people first used beer, too. Budweiser must also automatically lead to heroin addiction then, right? Or everybody who uses it ends up pissing themselves in a garbage pile in some back alley, right?
Betcha a lot of those people used coffee too. Are you gonna say coffee isn’t a drug, a stimulant, a mood-altering substance? Using your “logic,” then, coffee is a gateway drug.
You will, of course, protest the above two statements. Why? Because pot’s illegal in all 50 states, and beer and coffee aren’t.
Numb-fucks like you are the reason injustices happen in our society. Back up here, little lamb, and get ram-rodded by the farmer that is the government, spelling out for you what’s right and wrong, what is and what isn’t. Don’t ever question whether it makes sense. It’s the law.
Throw away their lives? Smoking marijuana? I prefer beer myself, but I have friends and relatives who are pot-smokers who are more successful and productive members of society than you’ll ever be, you Pollyanna-ish puke!
Do you really want to keep encouraging the government to throw people in jails and prisons for victimless crimes, messing up or destroying their lives and the lives of their families?
Don’t you even CARE?
“Nothing is so firmly believed as what is least known” - Michel Gyquem de Montaigne
Pot lovers: tell me this. Forget all this rediculous stuff about beer and coffee, and mass murderes breathing air first. That is nonsense and you know it.
What gives you the right to decide to obey some laws and not others? Just answer me that. It seems to me that if you can decide what laws to obey then so can anyone else and where would we be then? And dont give me any shit about “Crimes which dont have victims”. Whose the victim if I dont pay income tax? I am just one poor student making almost nothing, so why should it matter? Same thing here, so dont even try that lame ass argument.
“There is nothing technically unlawful about a person using pot.” That is why everyone hates lawyers, any fool can see that common-sense says there is something wrong with using it. Besides, once you use it, you can’t stop possesing it, because it’s in your body, but if you don’t use it you could always decide to throw it away and live right. You also won’t go do something really stupid when your stoned.
I am not saying the law is automatically moral. But I am saying that it is a good start, its to YOU now to show a good reason why is should be moral. I have the law on my side, what do you have? I notice no one has done that. I wonder why???
“I see smart kids getting turned down for college grants because they chose to smoke pot.” AWWWW. Soo bad. You know what I see? I see DUMB kids who knew that there “choice” was ILLEGAL, and they deserve what they get!!
“I see someone get busted with a small amount of pot while not even NEAR his vehicle and then have his drivers license suspended. Now he can’t even get himself to work, but he’s much better off because we’re protecting him from the evils of drugs!” AWWW. Sooo bad. I see an asshoel who knew that pot was ILLEGAL and “chose” to risk his drivers license because he was ADDICTED to getting high. We are all safer with this IDIOT off the road, who knows whether he would drive “HIGH” and kill an innocent family?
“Know what else I see? I see a mom working 16 hours a day to feed her kids. See, daddy’s in jail. He didn’t like beer like most of the other daddies. He liked to smoke a little pot on the weekends instead and didn’t want to deal with the criminal element encountered when purchasing from a dealer. So he grew a couple of plants in his closet, someone ratted him out, and now he’s doing a stretch in the state pen.” AWWW. I see a major ASSHOLE who loved his precious marijuana plants more than his family and risked his families safely and wellbeing to get his precious “HIGH”. Yeah, I feel real sorry for him. Its not the families fault, I know, but if Daddy is a CRIMINAL he should be locked up. And if this is how much he cared for his family when he was there they havent lost much have they???
It’s like arguing with a stump on fire. These morons are incapable of generating a thought of their own. I think they’re dying out, but it’ll take a few more generations before they’re all gone.
Can you imagine what the people of the 22nd century will be saying about these knuckle draggers?
I’m going to start taking my kids out of those “DARE” programs in school, if this is the sort of mindless, indoctrinated, twaddle that public school anit-drug education inspires.
So in other words, the evidence simply does not support pot as a “gateway drug”.
Even if it did, I can’t imagine how the act of smoking a joint could possibly lead to the use of harder drugs. A causal relationship could more adequately be explained by the fact that all drugs are essentially lumped together by the law, so a person who has contacts to buy pot is more likely to be able to get his hands on some blow. Once again, this is an effect of the drug laws, not the drugs.
I know, I know, I can throw out all the statistics and well-reasoned points I want, all you have to do is look out your window to see that marijuana is taking this country to hell in a stock car.
I have seen many people on this thread make many valid points as to why smoking pot is not immoral. Just because you choose to ignore them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
You have a responsibility to contribute to the government for the services it provides to you–roads, defense, police protection, etc. Just because your contribution is miniscule and would not be missed, that doesn’t mean you don’t still have the responsibility. A person smoking a joint in the privacy of his home does not harm anyone, despite your slippery slope arguments to the contrary.
[B-Dude then dismisses the plight of many people punished for drug use by saying that they were stupid for using drugs in the first place.]
Brace yourself–I agree. I think that anyone with anything to lose is an idiot for smoking marijuana in this country right now, given the possibly consequences. However, I don’t make the mistake of attributing those consequences to the drug itself, rather than the drug laws.
May I ask a question? Do you feel that alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal?
The law is a good start to what? Oppression? Mind control? Divisive public policy?
The laws regarding marijuana were originally written out of a racist fear that the recreational drug of some minority ethnic groups would somehow “infect” the “pure white majority.” This was done after a prohibition had been tried–and had failed–on the recreational drug of choice of the majority. This smacks of a clearly immoral law. Thirty years after marijuana was outlawed, a cultural/societal shift occurred in this country in which a large number of the “pure white majority” experimented with marijuana and decided that it was not that bad. The marijuana laws were relaxed and, in many areas, ignored. In the midst of a general movement of society toward redefining the drug laws in terms similar to those of the Netherlands, the drug laws got caught up in the hysteria of the Reagan revolution. Instead of being considered on their own merits, they were dumped into the general pot of “Liberalism” and the old racist canards were dragged out to reinforce the harsher penalties for marijuana use.
A law that is based on racism and that is enforced in a racist fashion is not a moral law. That is clear. If you want to assert that any law stands as “moral” until proved otherwise, then you will have to show why the laws for crack (used by inner city blacks) and powder cocaine (used by suburban whites) are so different in penalty when the old lie that crack is more addictive was disproved within months of the passage of the original laws. (And they have been renewed in despite of the evidence on multiple occasions.)
Laws are simply the way that society enforces “order.” A law that is written to impose harsher penalties on one group than a similar activity on another group is immoral.
The marijuana laws are not as egregiously racist as the crack/powder laws, but they originated in the same racist mindset. That puts the burden on you to show why we should consider them moral.
< cracking knuckles >
Right, then. I’ll have a little go at the “burning stump,” shall I? Sorry, all, but it’ll be a looong one.
Well, I’m not sure how everyone who supports marijuana decriminalization is a “pot lover,” but oh well.
So, you are officially rescinding your “gateway drug” arguments, then?? I want to know this. It sounds to me like the coffee argument pretty much shot down your foolish and unbased allegation that pot “leads” to other drug use. It further sounds like you’re admitting that. Good for you! There might be hope!
My pleasure. Listen closely, now.
I have the right to disobey any law I want, provided I do not infringe upon the rights of another.
In doing so, I implicitly accept any and all possible punishment. I do not have the right to kill someone (and thereby deprive them of their right to life), but I do have the right to engage in oral sex, for example (which is also illegal in many places).
Hey, Ave-B–have you ever exceeded the speed limit? You have!? Than kindly shut the fuck up.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. If you do not pay your income tax, I am the victim. In a very small way, true, but it’s the case nevertheless. I am your victim because I have to shoulder a small fraction of your tax burden. I’m sorry, but one silly and incorrect example does not change in any way the fact that I harm no one by smoking pot.
Hmmm. Any fool can see. And you see. Therefore . . .
May I sabu dogface on the banana patch, please? IOW, huh???
Bullshit. Every time you say that we have an obligation to obey the law you are making a moral judgement on the validity of the law.
Huh?? I’m not at all sure what you’re saying here. Just because I don’t find a law to be a moral authority doesn’t mean I think pot smoking is “moral.” That’s just plain silly, pal. Morality is only an issue here inasmuch as it’s the knee-jerk prohibitionists telling us that weed IS immoral. For the smokers and for everyone else opposed to silly and meaningless legislation it’s not a moral issue at all.
The above quotation brought to you by Caligula, Rasputin, Stalin and Tailgunner Joe McCarthy.
Abuse of power by any other name would still stink, pally. “The Law” is not sacrosanct. Nor is it always correct. Deal with it.
You missed the point. The second part of that dealt with alcohol abuse on college campuses. Oh, I’m sorry, alcohol’s legal, so it’s ok if the kids get fucked up and trash the dorm while date-raping the entire Tri-Delt house.
Re: losing a driver’s license for misdemeanor possession:
Yes, you are correct. This hypothetical person knew the potential consequences of his possession. That sure doesn’t make the consequences justifiable.
Yeah, whatever. :rolleyes:
[/quote]
We are all safer with this IDIOT off the road, who knows whether he would drive “HIGH” and kill an innocent family?
[/quote]
I’ll dig up the numbers, but it’s fairly well-established that
A) pot smokers are less likely to drive while under the influence than users of alcohol, and
B) pot smokers are less likely to get into accidents while under the influence than users of alcohol.
So much for that argument.
Again, true. He knew the potential legal consequences of growing. Again, that doens’t make the punishment right.
And again, :rolleyes:.
Getting back to morals, you are again saying that because the law says it, it’s morally correct. And you’re wrong.
In what way does growing a couple marijuana plants make him evil?
Why thank you. I guess. In what way am I killing the country? By hoping my elected and appointed officials will decide to protect me from violence and theft instead of pursuing an ill-advised and ill-planned “war on pot?” Boy, color me stupid.
May I suggest that you start a new thread in Great Debates to make your case about the evils of pot. You obviously aren’t going to convince anybody here.
Someone hand me my roachclip, would you please?
Eagles may soar, but weasels don’t get sucked into jet engines. Delta-9 Home Page
Martin Luther King Jr said it best : “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
As has been said countless times, I’m NOT hurting anyone else by smoking pot. How is my smoking a plant immoral? Pretend there were never any laws regarding the use of marijuana. Judge the plant solely on its effects. How are they immoral?
Right then, so should we get started banning the licenses of anyone who ever drinks alcohol, takes sleeping medicine, cough syrup, painkillers, falls asleep easily, or reaches a certain age? These people are, after all, POTENTIAL KILLERS, even if they aren’t driving while using the substance, THERE’S A CHANCE THEY MIGHT! Flawless logic, AveB.
I’ll take what Andros said a step further: An argument can be made that, not only is smoking pot not hurting anyone, the government is hurting me by not making marijuana legal.
Were pot legal, it would be taxed, probably close to or as heavily as tobacco. Hence, we would have more money for our health care, our schools, etc. We would also save countless millions of dollars currently being thrown down a hole by incarcerating victimless criminals using my tax money.
And before you label me a ‘pot fiend,’ fucknose, I’ve smoked it probably once in the past three years.
“Nothing is so firmly believed as what is least known” - Michel Gyquem de Montaigne
See, drugs are going to be around no matter what. In 10,000 years, nobody has been able to get rid of them. Therefore money is going to be spent on those drugs. Would you rather have that money going to :
A. Organized crime, so they can buy more guns, recruit more members, and kill more people
or
B. The government who could use the money to fund drug education, treatment, health costs related to drug use, etc, etc.
`What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don’t like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don’t expect freedom to survive very long.’
– Thomas Sowell
Good points Everybody! One Question however.
Why do you even bother to respond to this mindless and psychotic troll?
If you go back to the OP you will see that his question is not a reasoned inquiry on whether or not this board should allow posts on a subject that is illegal, but an irrational rant that insults some of the more intelligent posters on the board, like Democritus and Single dad.
I know, I know, this is the pit. But this idiot makes every other troll look like the soul of reason. If you’re having fun slagging him, please go ahead, but I hope nobody’s looking for any real dialog.
So LarryB, I’m looking for a decent lasagna reciepe. Got any ideas?
Oh, and Exprix, IMHO hot chocolate should always be made with milk. Unfortunately it’s harder to find one like that if you’re not at home.
A very good question, Larry. There are two reasons:
Firstly, I have encountered at least one reformed troll. I believe now that sometimes it’s possible for an idiot to settle down and post like a normal human being. So I’ll often give 'em a chance.
Secondly, I like to get at least one one solid slag in on folks who vomit stale rhetoric all over the place.
When I was younger ( like 20 ) I used to wonder how immoral leaders like Hitler got the population to follow blindly. Sadly, as I now see, the necessary atitude on the part of the people is not uncommon.
