Why Does This Board Tolerate Illegal Activities?

The BBQ Pit
161

The point was that either the Paraquat scare was BS propaganda OR that OUR government knew about it, condoned it, and allowed it to happen. Since you contend that OUR government would not poison us then they must have been lying about the threat. And yes, I believe that OUR government wants those free thinkers that threaten the status quo oppressed, and if it means putting a few harmless hippies (new and old) in jail, or if they have to kill a few of them to scare the others into ‘Just saying no’ then so be it. That was part of the reason that the ‘60s’ happened. [sarcasm]Can’t let those radicals get uppity and start questioning the war, demanding civil rights.[/sarcasm] People dared to question the status quo, the 2.3 kid nuclear family and got vilified for it.

Camelot is dead, and good riddance, get over it.

162

In regard to the question of our government lying to us, there’s also the 400,000 smoking related deaths that you hear about. Not entirely a lie, but it was derived by ignoring any statistics that didn’t agree it, among other tricks. For more info read this (sorry about the pdf format).

Rousseau, how many times am I going to have to explain that I was answering the question “what law did anti-slavery sympathizers break?”, and whether the law was constitutional is irrelevant to that question. I was trying to show AvenueB-dude that law does not equal right. Even if the law was constitutional it still wasn’t right. Not that it matters, since AvenueB-dude was apparently lying in his promise to stop discussing pot if we could name the law.

163

If by “your own desires,” you mean my desires in addition to the desires of roughly 40 million other Americans, plus the desires of hundreds of thousands of Americans in jail for victimless crimes, and the desires of the TEN MILLION people who were arrested for marijuana in the past thirty years, then YES Rousseau, that’s precisely what I’m doing!

Okay, why don’t you take a trip to Holland and tell me what the horrible ramifications of legal pot are? A lower crime rate? An obsession with tulips, live sex shoes, and wooden shoes? Certainly it’s not a depraved nation of strung-out junkies. I’m awaiting your brilliant reasoning as to why the Netherlands is still standing after 25 years of decriminalized soft drugs.

I did not give that as a reason why it should be legal. You said the medical benefits of illegal drugs were nonexistent. I told you why you were wrong. Perhaps you’re the one who needs the reading comp classes. Oh, and cocaine IS legal. It’s a schedule II drug, meaning it’s addictive but has some medical uses. It belongs to the same family of drugs as lidocaine, novacaine, and benzocaine. It is, however, rarely used in medicine.

Then what the hell DID you say?

Saying that pot is less dangerous than crack is contradictory to the Drugs are Bad message? Is that what you’re trying to say in that run-on sentence? You know, if I can understand every other damn post on this message board, doesn’t it stand to reason that my reading comprehension is fine and that you’re just a crappy writer?

I think that sums it up perfectly. You don’t KNOW anything about the subject! You don’t know a goddamn thing about drugs! How can you debate a subject you know nothing about?
And I’m still waiting to see if you think we should make junk food illegal because it leads to heart disease. How about gambling? Plenty of people get addicted to that and lose everything they own.

164

Well yeah, but they’re not what they’re cracked up to be. Personally, I prefer a good Live Hat Hump myself :smiley:

Coldfire
Voted Poster Most Likely To Post Drunk

"You know how complex women are"

  • Neil Peart, Rush (1993)
165

DOH! Why does the ‘e’ have to be right next to the ‘w,’ dammit? :slight_smile:

166

Hey, I thought you were doing a pretty good Ed Sullivan impression.

167

neutron star is a numbskull in the first degree. Allow me to point out all the spots in your last post where you are painfully wrong, and please, by all means, do it again.

[QUOTE[If by “your own desires,” you mean my desires in addition to the desires of roughly 40 million other Americans, plus the desires of hundreds of thousands of Americans in jail for victimless crimes, and the desires of the TEN MILLION people who were arrested for marijuana in the past thirty years, then YES Rousseau, that’s precisely what I’m doing![/QUOTE]

Oh, so THAT’s what you meant by, and I quote, “I don’t like being told what I can and can’t put into my own body?” I see.

You then proceed to compare the United States to the Netherlands. If I need to point out to you how absurd that comparison is, you’re probably not worth my time anyway. (No offense to the Netherlands, CF…it looks like the Viking is rising again and we need to join forces once again to vanquish him).

No, I said they were virtually nonexistent. And then I explained why those medical facts you listed mean less than squat. In fact, I explained it two or three times. Perhaps Reading for Comprehension 101 is a little advanced for you…why don’t you go find a swing set to play on?

Let’s go to the videotape.

That’s an independant clause…with me so far?

What’s that? “And?”

That’s a dependent clause. The important thing here is the connecting word…“and.” Not “therefore.” “And.” Which would seem to indicate two seperate ideas.

No, saying that pot is A.O.K. is contradictory to the message.

Oh, that’s fine logic. Let me try applying that…if everyone else on this board can understand me, doesn’t it stand to reason that my writing is fine, and that you’re just an imbecile?

And then, the cherry on top of this ignorance sundae:

I admitted that I didn’t know about marijuana’s effect on glaucoma patients. You drew this conclusion. This wouldn’t be AS funny to me if you hadn’t just tried to assert that you’re comprehension skills are “fine.”

“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill

168

So far, I haven’t heard anyone call for drug education that tells kids that pot is a pefectly fine activity. But, as I’ve told your dumb ass a thousand times in other threads, when you tell the kids that pot is horribly dangerous and they realize it’s not, they’ll think you were lying about crack too. Therein lies the danger.

No, I drew that conclusion from every single post you’ve made to every single drug thread. You don’t know the effects of these drugs. You don’t know there uses. You don’t know how many people get arrested for them or the average jail terms or ANYTHING Rousseau! Yours is the argument of ignorance. And, as has been said many times before, I STILL have yet to see someone who is as informed as I am about the WoD offer up an opinion similar to yours. Show me a drug war expert who thinks they should be illegal (and who does NOT work for the government).

And if you think millions of people are clamoring for legal medical marijuana for “virtually nonexistent” benefits, then I’m afraid that you must be the idiot.

169

That’s “their uses,” not “there uses” of course. I was typing too fast too notice.

170

Rousseau,

Just for the record, cannabis has been shown to have powerful anti-nausea properties useful in treating the nausea caused by chemotherapy and AIDS drug treatments. As an anti-nausea medication, it beats out pretty much anything currently available in today’s pharmocopae, and while Marinol - a drug synthesized from the active ingredients in cannabis - is available, it’s not as effective as marijuana AND makes the user much more high.

There are studies that show promise in using cannabic compounds in treating glaucoma as well as hypoglycemia, but it’s difficult to follow up on these because the Federal government has classes marijuana as a Schedule III drug - a substance with no known medical properties and severe drawbacks.

That’s why California and four other states have voted to legalize medical marijuana. That’s why the AMA is now saying we should take a second look at rescheduling marijuana and possibly even legalizing it.

Even Reader’s Digest has done a “Pot Saved My Cancer-Stricken Son’s Life” story on medical marijuana.

171

Phouka- actually it was from Schedule II (no known medical useage) to Schedule II.

Rousseau, please read DEA Judge Francis Young’s decision on the medicinal properties of marijuana (found here: http://www.commonlink.com/~olsen/MEDICAL/YOUNG/young.html . Most of the pertinent info is at the bottom of the first page). As he is a DEA Judge, I would not consider him to have a pro-marijuana agenda. He considered the evidence presented before him by NORML as well as the DEA before making his recommendation. If you think that there is a good argument that the DEA did not make that would have swayed the judge, please let me know what it is.

172

Argh!- Schedule I to Schedule II.

173

I have now waded through all four pages of this thread and I would like to say a few things.

  1. I think it is WAY past time for this thread to move over to Great Debates, under the topic “Legalization of Drugs”. The OP was only on whether we should be talking about things that are illegal, and I personally thought the topic was pretty much exhausted in the first 20 posts or so. I would have enjoyed hearing more feedback from people about the closing of the money laundering thread, but no, everybody seemed to prefer to wrangle on and on about Legalization of Drugs, with a couple of really frightening detours into Slavery and Women’s Rights, not to mention what seemed an inordinate number of postings to correct grammar and spelling. Hey, come on, people, this isn’t sophomore English class. We no longer have to get up and diagram sentences on the blackboard. Speaking for myself, I am much more interested in what people have to say than in how well (or poorly) they say it. Play with your SpellChecker in the privacy of your own home, please.

And when I eavesdrop on a group of people having a discussion, and I realize that most of the parties concerned are focusing on little nit-picky things (“you were 30 minutes late yesterday”; “can’t you ever remember to put the toilet seat down?”) and are resorting to personal insults (“that’s the ugliest wig I’ve ever seen”; “that’s my real hair, you moron”), then I realize that that means that the discussion is basically over, and that nobody participating has anything new to say.

  1. I’m surprised that, when we WERE discussing talking about illegal things, nobody mentioned what popped into my head the first time I heard about closing the money laundering thread–two words, “Legal Department.” Somebody in a Legal Department somewhere, possibly at Chicago Reader, possibly elsewhere, got his (or her) panties in a bunch, broke out in a cold sweat at the thought of possible lawsuits (“We can’t be seen to be condoning illegal activities”) and put the kibosh on it. So I don’t think it’s fair to blame the moderators. It’s an 85 to 95% probability that the decision actually came from higher up, but part of being a moderator includes taking the heat for things like that. “The buck must appear to stop here.”

One final observation–apparently AvenueB-dude was so busy looking out his window, watching all the pot-smokers dragging the world to Hell in a handbasket, that he failed to notice that WeirdDave posted a recipe for hash brownies on 3-21. Smartly done! Now I guess we’ll have to start a new topic–“Should SDMB support the posting of recipes using illegal substances?”

Or maybe he just wasn’t aware that you could add marijuana to things and eat it. Hey, hang around with us and you’ll learn all kinds of cool stuff! (But we promise that if any of it is illegal, we won’t talk about it. We have a special sign language we use to talk about illegal things. Pay attention, you’ll catch on. For example, a picture of a dancing hamster means “New shipments just in from Belize–see your local drug dealer for details.”)

174

You do realize that now we have to kill you?

175

“I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.”

Feel free to correct me at any time. But don’t be surprised if I try to correct you.

176

First of all, my apologies to Coldfire for duplicating his Clinton quote. I would not have made mine if I had seen his.

You gave the reason. I emphasized it. Have you heard of the philosophy that states that immoral and unjust laws ought to be disobeyed?

Y’know, you’re really not incompetent, and I should not have said so on the “Homophobic Bigots” thread. But I sure have trouble with your political POV.

Hey, AvenueB-dude: Have you ever had oral sex with a woman, giving OR receiving? In many states, that is considered sodomy and in those states, it is illegal. So is anal sex with a woman.

I’d like to see you condemn someone for discussing THAT.

Feel free to correct me at any time. But don’t be surprised if I try to correct you.

177

I don’t get it, what did he say ? ::rollseyes::

Notthemama:

I think you are going to fit in hear just fine, welcome aboard.

A point in every direction is like no point at all

178

Of course I meant here. Damn drugs !

179

www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article4

Just so we’re all on the same page here.

Feel free to correct me at any time. But don’t be surprised if I try to correct you.

180

Right, jab, but surely you must agree that above all, the States had to obey the Constitution. If they didn’t agree with slavery, so be it, and they should have done everything possible to dispense with it, but once they step into the realm of disobeying the Constitution because of their morals, we come dangerously close to Libertarian’s dream.

“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill