Oh I get it. I am the guy who shouldn’t be a citizen of the United States sititng right here not breaking any laws. You (the guy whose breaking laws every day) should be.
Maybe the THC has slowed down your brain and you don’t quite understand the concept of “good citizen”. Let me explain it so that anyone (even a brain damaged person) can understand.
Good citizens do not break the law.
Pot smokers break the law.
Conclusion? Pot smokers are not good citizens.
I was going to offer that you send me your address and I could send you a one-way ticket out of the country but I figure all I have to do is wait a while and then address my envelope to you care of the local prison. But of course by that time the one-way ticket wont help will it? I wonder what the right gift is for an inmate? Maybe kneepads? You can put your joint-sucking skills to use in there I guess!!
Good citizens do not break the law. Anti-slavery sympathizers break the law.
Conclusion? Anti-slavery sympathizersare not good citizens.
An old and tired analogy, I know, but one that fits this kind of logic very well. To say that obeying every law is what makes someone a good citizen is a very silly and naive way of looking at things. Do you really think that every law in this country was made with the best intentions of the citizens in mind? Do you really think that powerful businesses and powerful people don’t have some sort of influence on politicians who make the laws? Do you really think that the alcohol industry doesn’t pump millions and millions of dollars each year into anti-pot causes? Do you really think that the tobacco industry doesn’t have some kind of a roll in preventing anti-smoking laws from being passed? Laws are created by politicians. Politicians have an outside agenda. Corporations have a huge stake in which laws are passed and which aren’t. Corporations also contribute quite a bit to those politicians I just mentioned. To think that all laws are for the benefit of the general population is very naive indeed. You and GuanoLad would be very happy together. You both don’t have a clue how the real world works. “Putz” seems rather appropriate here.
Putz.
Dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope. - Freewheelin’ Franklin
From a column written by Charlie Reese in the Orlando Sentinel:
Charlie Reese is about as right-wing and conservative as a person can be. He wishes Pat Buchanan were President! :eek: He thinks the Confederacy were the good guys in "the War of Northern Aggression, as he calls it, and he isn’t joking. Nathan Bedford Forrest is one of his heroes.
But when a man is right about something. I will give him all the credit he’s due. I think his suggestion is workable. It’s far, far better than what we have now.
Feel free to correct me at any time. But don’t be surprised if I try to correct you.
Of course, another pot-smoking genius comes along. I will make you a deal right now: tell me exactly what law was broken by anti-slavery sympathizers and I will never say another word about pot on this board.
There was never a law against having certain FEELINGS, genius boy. Or against speaking your mind. So lets go – what law did they break???
Oh, please pardon me for not spelling it out a little more clearly for you, Sparky. By sympathizers I meant poeple that actually helped slaves escape the southern plantations and get to the north. People who actually took a look at an absurd set of laws and then did what they felt was right. People who were chastised and put in prison for trying to better the lives of black people in the old South. Were these folks bad citizens? Were these folks horrible people because they didn’t follow every narrow-minded law that was passed in this country? If you say yes, then I have nothing more to contribute here, as you’re an utterly hopeless human being.
Honestly, I don’t know why I even try to deal with people like you.
Um…there never was a law against speaking your mind, AvenueB? Wasn’t this whole thread started because the fact that people were…gasp…talking about using pot had given you the vapors?
AvenueB-dude,
Perhaps you should try using a larger font size for that last post. It was so far off-topic that I can’t read it from here.
On the whole slavery thing, as part of the Compromise of 1850, Congress passed a law making it a federal offense for anyone to help an escaped slave, regardless of whether or not the state they lived in allowed slavery. Consequently, the state of Massachusetts, IIRC, made a law that said enforcing this law was illegal. Sorry I can’t remember the name of the law offhand.
Well, it’s a really fucking good thing I decided to visit this thread tonight. So much new and provacative stuff has been posted in the last day, I just don’t know where to begin. You reformers certainly are an original bunch. What was that? Another comparison to slavery? Oooh, the “medicinal” values of drugs!! How insightful!!
Lex:
I suppose I set myself up for that one.
Bigoted?
You have trouble showing me that I’m wrong? Why on earth could that be?
Waitwaitwaitwait…let me get this straight here. I’m the one here who doesn’t advocate the inhalation of poison for the purposes of “getting high.” I’m the one who is demonstrating some consideration for human life, and practicing what I preach, and you somehow draw the conclusion that I need psychiatric help? I must say, Lex, this actually is a new one. I’ve never heard that one before (at least not addressed towards me).
Or it might be in effect trying to legislate the ingestion of poison. But whatever.
Yeah, I actually don’t give a rat’s ass about crack babies and strung-out teenagers barely clinging to life because all they’ve known is drug addiction. I just want to get on your case, because I’ve got nothing better to do. Maybe, Lex, just maybe, you’re the one who should see a shrink about your massive ego.
neutron star: In response to all of your bullshit medical rhetoric, there is not a single drug listed there for which there is not a perfectly legal and more safe drug available for the same purpose, with the exception of the opiates. Although, the pain they relieve is nothing compared to the pain they cause. My favorite, though, is"
I’ll just let that one stand alone.
Star, if you place the bullshit “benefits” of drugs that you’ve mentioned next to the amount of pain and suffering that they cause in our country, any person who can look at this issue impartially will see that they “benefits” are virtually nonexistent. But I don’t expect you to see that, because to see that would be to accept that the substances that you depend on to provide some missing element of your life are causing a world of trouble to people. I don’t expect you to see that, but as long as you’re going to preach empty drug rhetoric without giving a single thought to the implications that they have beyond your own selfish life, DO NOT call ME ignorant.
You then go off on some rant about me using your buzzwords, “gateway drug.” Apparently, those words set off the alarms so quickly that you didn’t even bother to read the rest of the sentence (you certainly didn’t go through the trouble of posting it…this is either because you didn’t read it, didn’t understand it, or [most likely] you just ignored it because it hindered your smart little flame). Since your entire thought process is based on half-truths and your own ignorant tunnel vision, I honestly don’t even know why I’m bothering to respond to you.
I’m kind of trying to avoid AvenueB’s little side arguments here, but waterj2 said:
I’m not condoning slavery or anything here, but that law was based on the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution. The reason that law was made was because States in the North were refusing to accept the laws of Southern States. Now, I know that their hearts were in the right place, but I also know that you guys value your Constitution above all other things. So, why exactly is it that Northern States should not have been compelled to obey the FF&C Clause?
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill
My people,
I love U. (mostly)
Great quotes!!!
No one noticed my favorite:
Big Ups Andros!
Get that kid a special test.
I am sick of law must B moral assumptions.
I think the proponents of laws should shoulder the burden of proving the morality of the law.
And not just 1nce. Periodicly the all laws should B examined 4 their continued relevency. Or face extinction.
Particularly the constitution.
Why does everyone worship it?
I never voted 4 it.
Neither did U.
It is blatently undemocratic and as such immoral!
line… gosh. Glad to see it all over the ENTIRE board! Jeepers, Wally, you should start a religion or something… church of the, “You’re a putz!”
Wait one minute here… someone posted that I should wake up and smell the coffee; you are encouraging me to partake in caffeine? A substance KNOWN to be habitual?! I’m beyond shocked! How DARE anyone on this board suggest that the use of such chemical be analogical to waking me up! What is WRONG with you??? Do you really want to keep encouraging people to THROW AWAY (their) LIVES??? Don’t you even CARE?
Best!
Byz
Voted most sex obsessed. (Yeah, blow me smart ass!)
Rousseau,
My point on slavery was only because AvenueB-dude wanted an example of a law that was broken by anti-slavery sympathizers. He was the one claiming that following the law made him a better citizen. Whether or not the law was constitutional is irrelevant. It was morally wrong by just about any standard, and those breaking it were right to do so.
I love this board.
U R my kind of people, mostly.
Love the quotes.
No one commented on my favorite:
Big Ups andros.
Yeah, get the kid a special test!
I am sick of this laws are allways moral until proven otherwise shit.
Y?
I think the burden to prove this should B on the proponents of the laws.
And they should have 2 convince us periodicly that the laws R still needed.
Or the laws will automaticly fall off the books.
Especially the constitution.
Y does everyone worship it?
I didn’t get 2 vote on it.
Neither did U.
How can the document that supposedly is the basis of our democracy B so blatently undemocratic?
There is an example of an immoral law 4 U.
The constitution should B burned!
And since it is written on hemp, that is not a bad idea.
Now thats a BLUNT!!!
______________________________Salaam
That should do it.
Lucy should be stuffing herself down the incinerator about now.
2sense,
Let me take a moment to welcome you to this forum. I hope that you will provide lots of good, intellegent opinions to these boards. One thing, however. Here at the SDMB, we generally do not use IM slang. This is not a criticism, and once and a while is fine, but there are long time posters here who would jump on you with cleats if you continue to post using these shortcuts. Just thought you should know. Again, welcome.
Okay then, they’re “bullshit benefits.” What a brilliant argument. I’m not saying drugs aren’t going to fuck you up. I’m saying that they DO have benefits, which, in some cases, outweigh the risks. If you get in an accident and you’re on morphine for a week, you aren’t going to get hooked. And you certainly aren’t going to get hooked from topical use of coke.
Medical research and reasoned argument is “empty drug rhetoric?”
You mean the message that we’re sending to kids as we’re pumping them full of Prozac and Ritalin? Talk about contradictory! And I guess “gateway drug” has two different meanings. One for Rousseau and another for the rest of the world.
How does pot being “readily available to teenagers” contradict the argument that drugs are bad? Does a car that goes 150mph contradict your driver’s ed teacher when he tells you not to speed? The gas pedal is there, so it must be okay!
It’s all a moot point anyway, because even as penalties for drug use go through the roof, drugs are still readily available. MORE available than alcohol even, since drug dealers don’t ask for ID.
I’m selfish because I don’t like being told what I can and can’t put into my own body?
You know, a lot of people die in car accidents. Should cars be illegal? If one in a million people who try some prescription drug die from it, should that drug be illegal? Millions of people die from heart disease. Should cheeseburgers be illegal and exercise mandatory? Some people are allergic to milk and peanuts. Should they be illegal? Should I not be allowed to enjoy my peanut butter sandwich because the kid down the street is allergic?
These are all products which, when used in the manner intended, can hurt and even kill people. Drugs fall into this category as well. Instead of spending $17 billion a year trying to lock people up, that money could be going to comprehensive drug education in schools. Instead we have DARE, which, in study after study after study, has been proven completely ineffective in reducting drug use one iota.
Rousseau, with all due respect: pot is not a poison of any sort. It is a plant. If smoked pure, it does no harm to the human body whatsoever. The only effect it has is the wellknown temporary rush. Which isn’t even physically addictive. Of course, I am well aware that most pot users smoke hybrid joints, i.e. a mixture of regular tobacco with pot where the proportions of the mixture coincide with personal taste and budgetary constraints.
Debate drugs and drug laws all you want, but if you want to remain credible, refrain from ignoring or even rejecting basic biologocal facts.
If you smoke cigarettes, you risk getting lung cancer.
If you drink alcohol, you risk getting liver diseases.
If you eat fat foods, you risk getting heart diseases.
If you smoke (pure) pot, there are no medical concequences whatsoever.
So, what is poison and what is not? Pot is the only substance listed above that does not provoke grave consequences when used in a non-moderate manner.
I’m sure the medical professionals on this board will agree with me on this one.
