Quote :

"really, go smoke some pot if you're getting this excited, would you? you seriously need to mellow out"

because being upset over the drug war and americans' ridiculous conception of drugs (that not even a 5 year old with a proper education with believe) means you need to relax

2/9/2009 2:42:05 PM

Quote :

"because being upset over the drug war and americans' ridiculous conception of drugs (that not even a 5 year old with a proper education with believe) means you need to relax"

you act like it makes one iota of difference whether you get upset about it or not...no one gives a rat's left nut about your opinion on the topic, just like they don't care about mine

you are no one, and bitching about it on a somewhat anonymous forum, getting your panties in a bunch over the issue, does absolutely NOTHING

so yeah, you need to relax...if pot is your method of choice, i encourage you to go for it

2/9/2009 2:45:28 PM

expressing your opinion is a pretty common human drive

i didn't expect to impact public policy on the wolf web, especially when it's full of people precisely as influential as yourself

2/9/2009 2:48:52 PM

^ ah, so you find yourself to be the exception to the rule? how very egotistical...does pot really make you think you're important? or is that a flaw inherent to your personality?

2/9/2009 2:50:33 PM

can't we all just get along?

2/9/2009 2:55:59 PM

[no]

2/9/2009 2:56:46 PM

can't we all just hit a bong?

2/9/2009 2:57:02 PM

everyone but quagmire.

2/9/2009 2:57:32 PM

i'm in a foul mood at work today...i just feel like upsetting those whose egos are so fragile that they get upset on teh intarweb, over something so very trivial

obligatory: "you should smoke some weed and mellow out"

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 2:59 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2009 2:58:34 PM

Quote :

"you act like it makes one iota of difference whether you get upset about it or not...no one gives a rat's left nut about your opinion on the topic, just like they don't care about mine you are no one, and bitching about it on a somewhat anonymous forum, getting your panties in a bunch over the issue, does absolutely NOTHING so yeah, you need to relax...if pot is your method of choice, i encourage you to go for it"

If he is no one, and his opinion does not matter, why do you continue to respond? If this was the case, wouldn't the correct response be indifference, which would result in silence?

If expressing your opinion on this forum does absolutely nothing because it is anonymous, would you condone the shutting down of the forum known as the Free Expression Tunnel?

Basically, I see a much greater evil in your attempts at silencing him, regardless of the type of forum, than his strong desire to express his opinion to everyone involved anonymously.

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 3:01 PM. Reason : -]

2/9/2009 2:59:40 PM

^ it's sad that you see everything i wrote as "attempts at silencing him"...also, see my post above yours

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 3:01 PM. Reason : correct quote]

2/9/2009 3:00:30 PM

i have my reasons for being upset at drug prohibition, none of which have to do with a "fragile ego"

last thing that's going to get to me is some yahoo on tww, trust me on that

2/9/2009 3:04:33 PM

Quote :

"i have my reasons for being upset at drug prohibition"

waaaaaaaaaaaaah! uncle's sam's killing my buzz! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

i don't AGREE with pot being illegal, but i certainly don't pity those who feel their personal liberties are being affected...you're complaining about losing the right to a RECREATIONAL activity...stop bitching about it...or are you saying that smoking weed is NECESSARY for your happiness?

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 3:08 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2009 3:05:58 PM

^
That makes no sense. So something that's recreational or unnecessary can't be a personal liberty?
Is that what you're saying?

2/9/2009 3:16:40 PM

^^ what? i don't understand you at all. and i've only read this page. how can a liberty not be affected when you are restricted? if freedom and freedom of choice are actually what they purport to be, which we all know they're not, then if you are restricted, you aren't free sooooooo your freedom is restricted??? how is this not infringing on liberty? i mean you could even argue that like, speed limits infringe on personal liberty.

anyway, what if they took away other RECREATIONAL activities. like jogging or eating mcdonalds or going on roller coasters. or drinking alcohol. drinking coke. whatever. people would definitely lose their shit over that

2/9/2009 3:20:40 PM

^ & ^^ no, my point is that the whole argument is trivial...it's a pet cause that some people like to bitch about, some like to preach against, some don't care either way, and some are annoyed by all bitching parties

i'm a member of the last group...i don't give a fuck if weed is EVER made legal...i don't smoke it and i have no desire to do so, so the decision doesn't affect me at all...if those who DO smoke it get all whiny about something trivial like getting stoned (unless they're saying it's NOT trivial, in which case, why do they need/want it so badly?), it annoys me as much as the bible-thumpers who tout it as being evil

pot users need to realize that the world isn't going to end if it's not made legal, and those on the other end of the spectrum need to realize that the world isn't going to end if it IS...but that's not the case...users protest and bitch against the laws, and others protest and bitch about the users...both are obnoxious and MUCH too concerned with something that's out and out pointless

both groups need better hobbies since neither accomplishes anything of any value in their current ones...either that or they need lower voices

in related news, i'm going to protest that the 55mph speed limit out in podunk orange county negatively affects my personal liberties, since i believe that i could totally go 56mph and it wouldn't hurt anyone

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 3:54 PM. Reason : 57mph, even!]

2/9/2009 3:54:12 PM

I didnt read this thread but I am happy to see he's got a ROOR at least

ice bong ftmfw

2/9/2009 4:04:28 PM

ROOR ... 10/10. that's class.

2/9/2009 4:30:26 PM

Quote :

"...it's a pet cause"

Not really. Pot prohibition ruins lives and costs millions. (Look what it's doing to Phelps.) It's enforcement is disproportionate for racial minorities and the poor. People have their property forfeited. Some would even say that pot prohibition kills. It's anything but simply a bunch of stoners wanting to get stoned. That stereotype is just old and wrong.

Quote :

"why do they need/want it so badly?"

Why does that matter? How much someone feels they need it or want it is no one's business but their own. Also, they might not think it's trivial, and they're entitled to think that and share it with others. That that doesn't make them some bitchy stoner. You really are trolling are you? You did say:"i'm in a foul mood at work today...i just feel like upsetting those whose egos are so fragile that they get upset on teh intarweb, over something so very trivial" Weak, dude. Weak. Don't release your irrational and negative energy on us. Fucker.

Quote :

"i'm going to protest that the 55mph speed limit out in podunk orange county negatively affects my personal liberties, since i believe that i could totally go 56mph and it wouldn't hurt anyone"

I would agree. In fact, I think speed limits should be abolished and replaced with speed ratings. That way, if you exceed the speed rating, but do no harm (or unreasonable danger,) you'll never be charged with a crime. But if you do commit an actual crime, like hitting something or impeding traffic, and witnesses, cameras, or forensics show that you were exceeding the speed rating, then your crime or punishment would be increased over what it would have been if you hadn't been exceeding the speeding rating. Get it? But that's aside from the point. You were trying to make of light of civil liberties, when none of them should ever be taken lightly.

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 4:33 PM. Reason : ]

2/9/2009 4:31:18 PM

Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States


Smoking pot and getting caught in the gray states is a baaaaaad idea.

(didn't know if you guys knew it was decriminalized in NC)

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 7:02 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2009 6:59:47 PM

no clue

2/9/2009 7:02:11 PM

so 8 arrests have been made in south carolina at the home where the photo was taken.

They were trying to sell the bong on ebay for $100,000.

And now the governor pretty much says arresting Phelps at this point would be pointless

Quote :

" Eight arrested in Michael Phelps case Posted: Feb 9, 2009 03:52 PM Updated: Feb 10, 2009 08:20 AM COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) - New details have emerged about a party where Olympic champion Michael Phelps was spotted. On Feb. 2, a British tabloid published a picture of the 14-time Olympic gold medalist using a water pipe to smoke marijuana. The picture was taken at a party in Columbia back in November when Phelps was here for a visit. The Richland County Sheriff's Department has been taking a lot of heat from people in this country and all over the world. They want to know why Sheriff Leon Lott is going after Michael Phelps. Many are saying the sheriff should concentrate on more serious crimes, or at the very least, not focus solely on the Olympic champion when there were others at the party who were also breaking the law. Now it appears the case has expanded beyond Phelps' activities. The party took place in November at a house on Blossom Street near Five Points. It was at that house where someone snapped the photo of Phelps taking a hit on a marijuana pipe called a bong. Lott says the picture indicated a law was being broken in his jurisdiction. He said he couldn't ignore the violation just because Phelps is rich and famous. We've now learned that since investigators began trying to build a case, they've made eight arrests: seven for drug possession and one for distribution. These are arrests that resulted as the sheriff's department served search warrants. We've also learned that the department has located and confiscated that bong. Sources say the owner of the bong was trying to sell it on eBay for as much as $100,000. The owner, who wasn't even at the party, is one of the eight now charged. Phelps is not one of those charged at this point, but the sheriff's department has strong evidence that matches the photo to the house on Blossom Street. That house is in the city, but the Columbia Police Department decided not to initiate or take an active role in the investigation. Governor Mark Sanford is also weighing in on the sheriff's actions. On the FOX News Channel Sunday night, Geraldo Rivera asked Sanford whether Phelps should be prosecuted. "I don't see what it gets at this point," said Sanford. His spokesman told us Monday night Sanford is letting that quote stand. "

So phelps get photographed smoking marijuana and 8 other people get arrested in connection and Phelps might not have shit happen to him.

These are your tax dollars wasted here folks......

2/10/2009 1:53:45 PM

Most of the arguments I would have made about whether there's anything wrong with Phelps smoking pot (there isn't) have been dealt with quite clearly already. Here's my only additional point, re: the health effects discussion:

http://cancer.about.com/od/smokingandcancer/f/marijuana.htm

Quote :

"According to a recent study by the University of California Los Angeles, there is no increased lung cancer risk in smoking marijuana. The study presented at the annual American Thoracic Society meeting this week in San Diego, studied the lives of those under 60, since that age group is most to have been exposed to the heaviest amounts of marijuana use."

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/marijuana-ingredient-cuts-lung-cancer-growth-spread-18538.html

And not only that...

Quote :

"The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies. They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy."

So smoke away, me lovelies, and if you smoke cigarettes, smoke some weed too, because it could prevent you from getting cancer... but I'd suggest just quitting the cigs altogether to be safe.

2/10/2009 2:11:34 PM

Haha what seth myers said on snl was pretty funny.

2/10/2009 2:13:16 PM

Willy Nilly took care of what I was going to say, more or less

god damn quagmire is dumb as dog shit lol lol lol

2/11/2009 9:16:57 AM

http://news.aol.com/health/article/marijuana-use-linked-to-testicular/333866

Quote :

"Marijuana Use Linked to Testicular Cancer Marijuana use may increase the risk of developing testicular cancer, in particular a more aggressive form of the disease, according to a U.S. study published on Monday. The study of 369 Seattle-area men ages 18 to 44 with testicular cancer and 979 men in the same age bracket without the disease found that current marijuana users were 70 percent more likely to develop it compared to nonusers. The risk appeared to be highest among men who had reported smoking marijuana for at least 10 years, used it more than once a week or started using it before age 18, the researchers wrote in the journal Cancer. Stephen Schwartz of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, one of the researchers, said the study was the first to explore marijuana's possible association with testicular cancer. "This is the first study to look at this question, and by itself is not definitive. And there's a lot more research that would have to be done in order to be more confident that marijuana use really is important in a man's risk of developing testicular cancer," Schwartz said in a telephone interview. The study found the increased risk appeared to be in the form called nonseminoma testicular cancer. It accounts for 40 percent of cases and can be more aggressive and more difficult to treat, Schwartz said. Experts are unsure about the causes of testicular cancer, which often strikes men in their 20s and 30s. The disease is seen more commonly in men who have had an undescended testicle or have a family history of testicular cancer. The disease usually responds well to treatment and has a five-year survival rate of about 96 percent, according to the American Cancer Society. About 8,000 men in the United States are diagnosed with testicular cancer per year, and there are about 140,000 U.S. men alive who have survived the disease, the group said. The researchers said they were not sure what it was about marijuana that may raise the risk. Chronic marijuana use also can have effects on the male reproductive system including decreased sperm quality, they said. "

[Edited on February 11, 2009 at 9:57 AM. Reason : l;]

2/11/2009 9:57:30 AM

Quote :

"Not really. Pot prohibition ruins lives and costs millions. (Look what it's doing to Phelps.) It's enforcement is disproportionate for racial minorities and the poor. People have their property forfeited. Some would even say that pot prohibition kills. It's anything but simply a bunch of stoners wanting to get stoned. That stereotype is just old and wrong."

pot prohibition ruins NO ONE'S life...the choice to knowingly engage in ILLEGAL activities (whether you agree with it or not), then getting caught, then the subsequent bitching from both ends of the spectrum ruins people's lives...your assertion is completely asinine...prohibition HURTS no one...the people who get caught doing the things they're not legally allowed to do is what "hurts" them

were you ass-raped by your dad, that you have so much animosity toward authority that isn't your own?

Quote :

"Why does that matter? How much someone feels they need it or want it is no one's business but their own. Also, they might not think it's trivial, and they're entitled to think that and share it with others. That that doesn't make them some bitchy stoner. You really are trolling are you? You did say:"i'm in a foul mood at work today...i just feel like upsetting those whose egos are so fragile that they get upset on teh intarweb, over something so very trivial" Weak, dude. Weak. Don't release your irrational and negative energy on us. Fucker."

by your reasoning, nothing should be illegal...heroin? bah. coke? who cares! fucking sheep because you can't get any from a woman? no one's business! YOU are the kind of person that makes it so very easy to troll...while i'm pretty sure we're actually in agreement over the legal status of pot, you come up with the most retarded reasons:

1.) laws kill people...it has nothing to do with the person's actions
2.) it's no one's business what anyone does...there should be no laws

Quote :

"I would agree. In fact, I think speed limits should be abolished and replaced with speed ratings. That way, if you exceed the speed rating, but do no harm (or unreasonable danger,) you'll never be charged with a crime. But if you do commit an actual crime, like hitting something or impeding traffic, and witnesses, cameras, or forensics show that you were exceeding the speed rating, then your crime or punishment would be increased over what it would have been if you hadn't been exceeding the speeding rating. Get it? But that's aside from the point. You were trying to make of light of civil liberties, when none of them should ever be taken lightly."

we are in complete agreement here...MY point, though, which you are very good at missing, is that just because i don't AGREE with the law in its entirety doesn't give me the right to automatically do whatever the fuck i want and then bitch because i KNOWINGLY broke the law

you are in no way helping your case...your reasons are out and out stupidity because you're being intentionally obtuse (at least, i hope you are)

Quote :

"Willy Nilly took care of what I was going to say, more or less god damn quagmire is dumb as dog shit lol lol lol"

it's easy to piggyback on the words of others when you have nothing of value to contribute, isn't it?

2/11/2009 10:03:17 AM

all this thread does is remind me to never hang out with quagmire

2/11/2009 10:25:31 AM

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
~Albert Einstein

You sir, are an idiot.

2/11/2009 10:29:47 AM

^^^
Weak.

Quote :

"pot prohibition ruins NO ONE'S life...the choice to knowingly engage in ILLEGAL activities (whether you agree with it or not), then getting caught, then the subsequent bitching from both ends of the spectrum ruins people's lives...your assertion is completely asinine...prohibition HURTS no one...the people who get caught doing the things they're not legally allowed to do is what "hurts" them"

God, you're a hopeless loser if that's what you really think.
Lex malla, lex nulla.
You yourself said that engaging in illegal activities is what brought the harm to their life. Well guess what? If you take away the illegality, then those harms also vanish. And you know what that means? It means the the illegality is the problem. So yes, pot prohibition does ruin lives. You are fucking idiot to think otherwise.

Quote :

"were you ass-raped by your dad, that you have so much animosity toward authority that isn't your own?"

lol, I see. You're trolling. You did say that you "feel like upsetting those whose egos are so fragile that they get upset on teh intarweb, over something so very trivial"

I mean, come on people... He's suggesting that those who oppose unnecessary and harmful instances of authority must have been "ass-raped" by their dad. Why do we even read his posts, if that's all he's got?

Quote :

"by your reasoning, nothing should be illegal...heroin? bah. coke? who cares! fucking sheep because you can't get any from a woman? no one's business!"

Herroin and coke? Yes. Fucking sheep? Well, only if it's clear the sheep consents. "nothing should be illegal"? I'm not sure how you get "nothing".... Libertarians certainly don't reason that "nothing should be illegal." Can't you do a better job of trolling than that?

Quote :

"1.) laws kill people"

Because it's a completely unjust and unnecessary law, that denies life-saving medicine, then yes -- some would say that that law kills". (I never said that. I only said that "some people would say" it.)

Quote :

"...it has nothing to do with the person's actions"

If those actions are civil disobedience to an unjust and harmful law (lex malla, lex nulla,) then their actions are excusable and justified. Don't ever suggest that a libertarians take lightly the consequences of a person's actions. (Once again, you fail)

Quote :

"2.) it's no one's business what anyone does"

As long what they're doing doesn't harm anyone, anyone's property, anyone's liberty, or anyone's right to the same, then yes. It's no one's business what they do.

Quote :

"...there should be no laws"

Once again, a very weak troll attempt. Just because certain activities (ones that don't harm anyone, anyone's property, anyone's liberty, or anyone's right to the same) are "no one's business", doesn't mean that other activities aren't crimes and shouldn't be outlawed. (You are clearly trolling because no one is that stupid.) Actions that harm someone's person, property, liberty, or right to the same should be outlawed. Duh.

Quote :

"we are in complete agreement here..."

Cool. I'm doubtful it'll ever happen. Don't you think? (who knows? maybe in montana...)

Quote :

"MY point, though, which you are very good at missing, is that just because i don't AGREE with the law in its entirety doesn't give me the right to automatically do whatever the fuck i want and then bitch because i KNOWINGLY broke the law"

I respectfully disagree. My view is: Lex malla, lex nulla.

Quote :

"it's easy to piggyback on the words of others when you have nothing of value to contribute, isn't it? "

Actually, I think what he would have contributed was already said, so he simply acknowledged it rather than post basically the same thing. I do it all it time. (simply quoting something I agree with and would have added, had it not already been added)


^^^^

Quote :

"may....not definitive...."

I hate that these so-called studies see the light of day. the only studies worth anything are 100% scientific and 100% logical (large sample, double-blind, randomized, etc.)

I mean, recently pot-smoking was linked to cavities. OH NO, WEED SMOKE HURTS YOUR TEETH....No. It's just that many pot-smokers pass out nightly neglecting to brush. It's just a correlation. Simple responsibility (as always,) will remedy the situation.

Furthermore, studies that look at current pot use, are looking at pot use in the context of pot prohibition. Because it's illegal, there's no quality control -- the pot being smoked in these studies could have dust, hair, fertilizer residue, who knows? Plus, lighters often used to smoke pot emit nasty chemicals. Joint papers could have questionable inks or glue. In other words, the studies aren't looking at pot-smoking as it would exist were it legal and people were being responsible. Instead, it's looking at illicit pot-smoking and all of the negative effects that prohibition bring.

Don't believe the conclusions of studies unless they actually have meaningful conclusions.

[Edited on February 11, 2009 at 10:58 AM. Reason : ]

2/11/2009 10:32:39 AM

Quote :

"i, for one, have never been drunk in my entire life...i've drunk alcohol since i was 10 or 11 (watered wine at dinner), but have never felt the need to get shit-faced (is puking and a hangover REALLY that much fun?)...i've also never smoked pot, mostly for the same reason - i hate to be out of control"

you fail pretty hard at life

2/11/2009 10:37:02 AM

Quote :

"all this thread does is remind me to never hang out with quagmire"

aha, don't flatter yourself, kid...i don't think i'd ever be that bored

Quote :

"You yourself said that engaging in illegal activities is what brought the harm to their life. Well guess what? If you take away the illegality, then those harms also vanish. And you know what that means? It means the the illegality is the problem. So yes, pot prohibition does ruin lives. You are fucking idiot to think otherwise."

...you're serious? this isn't a joke? you're really saying that if we simply take way the illegality of any act, lives will immediately become awesome? dude...i'll give you mad props...you really had me thinking you were this dense for a while...gg

Quote :

"If it's a completely unjust and unnecessary law, that denies life-saving medicine, then yes"

you can't be so stupid as to truly believe pot is "life-saving medicine"...pain-reducing and a good time, sure...life-saving? you're on something a lot stronger than WEED

Quote :

"unjust and harmful law"

PLEASE tell me that you understand that these terms, in this context, are COMPLETELY and 100% subjective (if you even understand the concept)? it's unjust to YOU because it harshes your buzz...it's not unjust to ME because it affects me in NO WAY WHATSOEVER (and before you start bitching about using tax money blah blah blah, realize that it provides jobs for thousands of people, and that helps keep the economy going...see? i can sling bullshit, too)

Quote :

"As long what they're doing doesn't harm anyone, anyone's property, anyone's liberty, or anyone's right to the same, then yes. It's no one's business what they do."

ah, backpedaling is an art, yes? go ahead, state some more qualifiers to go along with your asinine statement...i AGREE that if it affects NO ONE IN ANY WAY, then sure, it's no one's business...but it's a crock of bull to think that smoking weed is COMPLETELY harmless in 100% of cases (again, it goes back to responsibility...some people can engage in activities safely and responsibly and some cannot...whether the law is right in its application to the majority, its existence is undeniably tied to those whose actions had/have negative effects)

Quote :

"I respectfully disagree. My view is: Lex malla, lex nulla."

the problem is that your view is also retarded and the result of ignorance (or, at least, the result of a parochial view)...i guarantee you that for every law that exists, there is someone, somewhere, who disagrees with it...you're saying that laws should exist, but only if they fit within your personal view of fairness...since it's impossible for everyone on the planet to agree, you're saying that YOUR view is more important than others

it's really pretty simple...pot prohibition HURTS no one (i'm sorry you disagree, but you're really too stupid to understand, based on your assertions that the use of weed saves lives), but the lack of prohibition has a GREATER chance of hurting people (due to the irresponsibility of some)...the SIMPLE FACT is that weed is illegal, and those who knowingly and willfully engage in illegal activities remove themselves from the group of people who have the right to bitch about who it hurts...it's the choice to break a law that "hurts" (i'm sorry you don't see the obvious cause-and-effect situation here...some people have common sense and some don't...i'm sorry you fall into the latter group)

Quote :

"you fail pretty hard at life"

oh, gee, i've never spent the night puking or woken up with a pounding headache because i drank too much the night before and i'm the one who fails? okay

[Edited on February 11, 2009 at 10:56 AM. Reason : .]

2/11/2009 10:55:41 AM

Quote :

"you're serious? this isn't a joke? you're really saying that if we simply take way the illegality of any act, lives will immediately become awesome? dude...i'll give you mad props...you really had me thinking you were this dense for a while"

No, I'm saying that solely about about marijuana possession and use. Nice straw-man, though.

Quote :

"If it's a completely unjust and unnecessary law, that denies life-saving medicine, then yes"

Quote :

"you can't be so stupid as to truly believe pot is "life-saving medicine"

See the word "If"? I said that if it's both a completely unjust and unnecessary law and one that denies life-saving medicine. If. (I never said that weed saves lives. It might.... depends on how you look at it, I guess..)

Quote :

"PLEASE tell me that you understand that these terms, in this context, are COMPLETELY and 100% subjective (if you even understand the concept)?"

Not really. In terms of what libertarians consider a "harm", the terms are COMPLETELY and 100% objective.

Quote :

"it's unjust to YOU because it harshes your buzz...it's not unjust to ME because it affects me in NO WAY WHATSOEVER"

Nope. It's unjust to everyone because it outlaws a harmless act.

Quote :

"and before you start bitching about using tax money blah blah blah"

lol, what?

Quote :

"backpedaling is an art, yes?"

I suppose. But I've never back-peddled. Have you?

Quote :

"...i AGREE that if it affects NO ONE IN ANY WAY, then sure, it's no one's business...but it's a crock of bull to think that smoking weed is COMPLETELY harmless in 100% of cases (again, it goes back to responsibility...some people can engage in activities safely and responsibly and some cannot...whether the law is right in its application to the majority, its existence is undeniably tied to those whose actions had/have negative effects)"

Well, which is it? You say that "some cannot" use it responsibly, in which case, it's their irresponsibility that's to blame, not the weed. If you only count instances of responsible use, (because those are, by definition, the only instances without other irresponsibilities at least sharing the blame,) then yes smoking weed is COMPLETELY harmless in 100% of cases -- "harmless" as in the libertarian sense: in terms of affecting others. The harm it causes oneself is one's own responsibility, and not a harm in the same sense.

Quote :

"the problem is that your view is also retarded and the result of ignorance"

Tell that St. Thomas Aquinas

Quote :

"i guarantee you that for every law that exists, there is someone, somewhere, who disagrees with it..."

So? That doesn't make them right... Lex malla, lex nulla is not a justification for general lawlessness. Only you seem to see it that way.

Quote :

"you're saying that laws should exist, but only if they fit within your personal view of fairness..."

No, they have to fit within the commonly shared western philosophy of libertarianism, not merely my personal views.

Quote :

"since it's impossible for everyone on the planet to agree, you're saying that YOUR view is more important than others"

No, I'm saying that the libertarian viewpoint is the correct one. It's got nothing to do with me.

Quote :

"it's really pretty simple...pot prohibition HURTS no one"

That's simply incorrect. It quite obviously hurts their liberty and property, and some would say it hurts them physically.

Quote :

"sorry you disagree, but you're really too stupid to understand, based on your assertions that the use of weed saves lives"

I never said that weed saves lives.

Quote :

"but the lack of prohibition has a GREATER chance of hurting people (due to the irresponsibility of some)..."

If it's their irresponsibility, then they, not the liberty to use marijuana, are to blame for the harm.

Quote :

"the SIMPLE FACT is that weed is illegal, and those who knowingly and willfully engage in illegal activities remove themselves from the group of people who have the right to bitch about who it hurts."

That is your opinion. While I may disagree, I support your right to express it.

Quote :

"it's the choice to break a law that "hurts" (i'm sorry you don't see the obvious cause-and-effect situation here..."

If you choose to view things that way, you are entitled to. However, I and others see it differently. Cause-and-effect? The unjust law came first.

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

Tag-team! Let me tag-in someone...I've got work to do (Or else I'll check back later)

[Edited on February 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM. Reason : ]

2/11/2009 11:39:35 AM

on the testicular cancer risk:

The testes have receptors for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, and the male reproductive system is known to naturally produce a cannabinoid-like chemical that is thought to protect against the disease.

The researchers speculate that cannabis may interfere with this anti-tumour effect, increasing the risk of the cancer developing.

Janet Daling, a member of the research team, said: "It has been suggested that puberty is a window of opportunity during which lifestyle or environmental factors can increase the risk of testicular cancer. This is consistent with the study's findings that the elevated risk of nonseminoma-type testicular cancer in particular was associated with marijuana use prior to age 18.

So unless you're under 18, there's little to no risk, and if you started before 18, it's too late to worry about it anyway.
Also, as they point out, the risk is to a very minute percentage of users in the first place.

So, to review, IF this is even true, it applies to a very small percentage of young men who were already at risk for testicular cancer for other reasons who started smoking before age 18.

2/11/2009 1:25:34 PM

decrimanilized in NC? what does that actually mean?

can you smoke it on the street? do workplaces still test for weed? can they discriminate against a drug if its decriminalized?
can you sell it? grow it?

2/11/2009 1:41:02 PM

It mainly means the fine is small and it doesn't go on your record and can't be arrested for it. It's seen as a traffic violation rather than a more severe crime as in non-decriminilized states. For example there was a recent article about how Boston cops are gonna stop ticketing people for it because it's too much trouble. As long as they're not doing it in the streets the cops don't care and won't respond to calls for it. Cops in NC are moving in that direction too.

here is a good example, although the cops aren't even following the decriminalization laws of fining users $100 and just not fining them at all!

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/03/police_balk_at_ticketing_marijuana_offenders/

Quote :

"If an officer spots someone smoking marijuana, he said, "We will confiscate it and the person will be sent on their way.""

Quote :

"it's really pretty simple...pot prohibition HURTS no one"

This is really the only thing i strongly disagree with. I don't think there's anyone out there who actually truly believes that. I mean look at the alcohol prohibition. Any substance that creates a black market hurts people. It doesn't matter if the substance is illegal or not. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean the people hurt can be magically removed from society.

There's been plenty of studies on the war on drugs and how the marijuana/drug prohibition is NOT working. It costs the nation billions of dollars each year and it costs something like $20-30k a year to keep a pothead in prison. The black market is caused directly by prohibition laws and hurts a ton of people in and out of prison.

[Edited on February 11, 2009 at 2:05 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2009 1:46:42 PM

Quote :

"This is really the only thing i strongly disagree with. I don't think there's anyone out there who actually truly believes that. I mean look at the alcohol prohibition. Any substance that creates a black market hurts people. It doesn't matter if the substance is illegal or not. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean the people hurt can be magically removed from society."

the problem with the bolded text is that, by your reasoning, it should be legal to sell your baby to whomever you want (since there's a law against that now, and there is currently a black market for babies)...unless you're ONLY referring to substances, but even that is arguable and dependent upon the substance, its effects, and the situation...i don't think there's a blanket solution for every situation

Quote :

"There's been plenty of studies on the war on drugs and how the marijuana/drug prohibition is NOT working. It costs the nation billions of dollars each year and it costs something like $20-30k a year to keep a pothead in prison. The black market is caused directly by prohibition laws and hurts a ton of people in and out of prison."

i do not disagree with this (the facts or viewpoint) AT ALL...i believe that "hard" drugs like coke and heroin should remain illegal (though there are obviously some people in this thread who think it should be a free-for-all...anarchists like them should GTFO if this country is sooooooo horrible to them), but weed should NOT fall into the category of illegal substances...shoot, outlaw cigarettes, legalize and tax the hell out of pot, and i'd be MUCH happier

i'm not arguing whether pot should be legal or not...what i AM arguing is that the people who break the law cause problems for themselves...the law, fair or not (which, again, is subjective, despite how some people seem to think there's a deity-provided universal list of "fair" and "unfair" laws) exists, and those who knowingly and willfully break it bring trouble upon themselves...if everyone obeyed the law, there'd be no need for prisons, confiscation of property, or any of the horrible horrible this-is-worse-than-hell-ever-could-be repercussions that the users like to bitch and whine about

i mean, it's like sticking your dick in a pickle slicer and then complaining when you're left with sandwich-style penis chips! you KNEW the consequences before you did it and then did it anyway...you didn't HAVE to stick your dick in a pickle slicer, but you thought i'd be fun and hoped the worst wouldn't happen...no one makes anyone smoke pot, so the laws aren't exactly creating a hardship...they're just pissing off people who were going to find something to bitch about anyway

also,

2/11/2009 2:21:03 PM

Quote :

"the problem with the bolded text is that, by your reasoning, it should be legal to sell your baby to whomever you want (since there's a law against that now, and there is currently a black market for babies)...unless you're ONLY referring to substances, but even that is arguable and dependent upon the substance, its effects, and the situation...i don't think there's a blanket solution for every situation"

You're making it very black and white. Laws are there for a reason. I'm saying any law that creates a black market for a substance or action that would otherwise not harm or would help society should not be there. Obviously some laws should stay there.

Lets say reuben sandwiches were illegal. There would be a big black market for reuben sandwiches and a bunch of people would get hurt. Reuben sandwiches just like marijuana don't really hurt society and therefore a black market would just hurt people and be pointless (people getting killed from bad corn beef or laced 1000 island dressing). People who choose to eat reuben sandwiches (or have sex in NC other than in the missionary position) shouldn't be punished for standing up against a silly law.

As I posted earlier those Boston cops are agreeing with this idea. It's a silly law, hard to enforce, and they aren't going to fine anyone they find with marijuana. It's the same as getting a blow job in NC. It's impossible to enforce and stupid to fine someone for it. The cops know it's pointless to fine all these non-violent offenders and sticking them in jail is even worse. I guess what i'm saying is that in the long run plenty of people get hurt from the marijuana prohibition. But you don't seem to agree with this.

I think a big point you're missing is that people getting hurt is not solely limited to breaking the law and getting punished. People can get hurt from laced marijuana, from drug trades gone wrong, and from other stupid things. Just like in the alcohol prohibition. Tons of people died from gang wars, poorly made moonshine, and many other harmful chemicals used to make illegal alcoholic drinks. I'm saying people get hurt in a black market not only from the government, but for many other reasons too. People get hurt simply because any substance on a blackmarket is not regulated and not always safe. I guess this applies more to harder drugs but in general the idea is the same.

Quote :

"i'm not arguing whether pot should be legal or not...what i AM arguing is that the people who break the law cause problems for themselves...the law"

I see your point. I guess what i'm saying is it's a silly law and it shouldn't be enforced. And what's great is with the whole decriminalization thing it's not being enforced in many places.

[Edited on February 11, 2009 at 3:09 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2009 2:59:09 PM

Save your breath, this kid lacks the ability to comprehend what you have all eloquently described.

2/11/2009 3:03:16 PM

To: Kellogg's Corporation

Whereas...

1) Kellogg's is a major manufacturer of cereal and junk food products including but not limited to Frosted Flakes, Pop Tarts, Cheez-Its, Froot Loops, Keebler's Cookies, Rice Krispies, Eggo Frozen Waffles, Famous Amos Cookies and many other products known to be a part of the diet of many marijuana using Americans

2) The Kellogg's has profited for decades on the food tastes of marijuana using Americans with the munchies. In fact, we believe that most people over the age of twelve would not eat Kellogg's products were they not wicked high.

3)That Kellogg's has decided to end their relationship with Olympic Swimmer Michael Phelps after pictures of him surfaced doing exactly what most Kellogg's customers do right before enjoying a bowl of Rice Krispies mixed with Keebler Cookies with an Eggo on top.

4) That this action by Kellogg's, while legal, is totally bogus.

5) That Kellogg's is a big fat hypocrite, just like our parents when they found our stash under our mattress and took it and then later they sat in the living room and listened the Dark Side Of The Moon over and over and danced and laughed and I swear we smelled something.
John Harvey.

6) That a quick Wikipedia search shows the founder of Kellogg's - john Harvey Kellogg - was a total frickin' weirdo who believe in putting children's genitals in a cage to keep them from playing with themselves and also believed in yogurt enemas.

7) That seriously, just Google John Harvey Kellogg. Dude was freaky.

8) That the thing about yogurt enemas makes us want to hurl when we look at that box of Kellogg's Yogos we have in the pantry.

9) That Michael Phelps should totally drop YOU dudes for your obsession with bran and fiber and masturbation and butts and stuff. You drop HIM? Dude won eight gold medals and probably didn't stick a single one in his butt or tie it in tourniquet around his naughty bits. Dude was just trying to relax. Seriously Kellogg's, WTF?

Given all these facts and the total disregard for your customer base and that thing with the yogurt, we the undersigned plan to BOYCOTT your products.

And we're serious.

Even though the Pop Tarts thing will be HARD.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

2/11/2009 3:47:52 PM

I, too, smoke from bongs

2/11/2009 4:10:31 PM

Quote :

"I think a big point you're missing is that people getting hurt is not solely limited to breaking the law and getting punished. People can get hurt from laced marijuana, from drug trades gone wrong, and from other stupid things. Just like in the alcohol prohibition. Tons of people died from gang wars, poorly made moonshine, and many other harmful chemicals used to make illegal alcoholic drinks. I'm saying people get hurt in a black market not only from the government, but for many other reasons too. People get hurt simply because any substance on a blackmarket is not regulated and not always safe. I guess this applies more to harder drugs but in general the idea is the same."

that's a good point, and i agree...i guess that i wrote casualties off as "if you weren't psychologically addicted to weed, you wouldn't have this problem"...because, really, that's what it is...your sandwich comparison was valid in the basics, but I don't think that even a minuscule portion of the population is psychologically addicted to that particular sandwich...nor does the proper use of that sandwich leave some mentally incapable of functioning safely...nor would the population crave the effects of said sandwich so badly that they're risk death to have it

i know that alcohol is a favorite comparison for pot advocates and for good reason...the thing is that if alcohol were made illegal again, i (personally) don't feel the NEED to have it, so much that i'd risk injury to get it...that's the way i see it, anyway...i don't see too many potheads going "i'm going to stick it to the man, teach him a lesson by smoking this joint!" so much as "i want some weed and the government is getting on my nerves, making it so hard to get...i hate those fuckers!...*nom nom nom*"

Quote :

"I see your point. I guess what i'm saying is it's a silly law and it shouldn't be enforced. And what's great is with the whole decriminalization thing it's not being enforced in many places."

agreed 100%...the SC county sheriff that ordered the arrest of those kids (especially to the exclusion of phelps, because it just shows that he's a fucking coward who won't stand by his supposed beliefs) should be cornered in an alley somewhere...i don't think we agree on the illegality of harder drugs, but the whole war on weed is absolutely ridiculous and one of the biggest wastes of time and resources (and lives, if you want to go that route), second only to the "war" in the middle east, IMO

Quote :

"Save your breath, this kid lacks the ability to comprehend what you have all eloquently described."

i invite you to STFU, you dumb dick...you contribute nothing of value (surprise!), but prefer to egg it on from the bleachers

2/11/2009 4:21:54 PM

Quote :

"if everyone obeyed the law, there'd be no need for prisons, confiscation of property, or any of the horrible horrible this-is-worse-than-hell-ever-could-be repercussions that the users like to bitch and whine about "

ohhhh so thats the solution. ok everyone, DO NOT BREAK ANY LAWS!!!

2/11/2009 4:23:00 PM

^ read within context, please...break THE law...as in, don't buy/grow/smoke pot...it's easy to stay out of trouble when you don't engage in the law-breaking activity, you know...i'm not really surprised you jumped on that as you did, but still

2/11/2009 4:25:14 PM

^no i think we agree on harder drugs. The war on marijuana is mainly what I'm talking about. And you have no idea how much i love reuben sandwiches.

2/11/2009 4:27:37 PM

haha...i suspect i'd kill for a REAL cuban

2/11/2009 4:29:54 PM

the law a law, whats the difference really

oh and



after reading things IN CONTEXT (this deserves another and it would be cool if i could read a post in this thread with out a holier than thou attitude because you don't smoke or drink and "don't care" if other people do...and i really get that nonchalant attitude from you, i do) the things i've learned are threefold:

1) if a law doesn't affect you, IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER, it definitely can't be unjust or wrong or whatever
2) even if laws are wrong/unjust/whatever, they are still laws. DONT BREAK THEM!
3) blind conformance is key

and i'm sure someone else has pointed this out, but it is a big motherfucking waste of time and money to be giving two shits about people that smoke pot and to punish them when the prison system is already overcrowded AND when the prison system provides excellent training in how to become...a career criminal!! but this isn't HURTING anyone. pot prohibition doesn't hurt ANYONE. well, it is my friend, it is. and it isn't just hurting smelly hippies that want to blaze. i guess it wouldn't hurt anyone if no one broke the law?? oh to dream. but since it already happened, is happening right now, and will continue to happen, the solution to the problem isn't to say "oh if no one broke the law, then no one would get hurt." hindsight is 20/20. and we'd have to go back a long ass way to find a society in which all members complied with authority.

saying "he shouldn't have broken the law, he is getting what he deserves, he should have known better" isn't helping the problem, at all, no matter which way you spin it.




[Edited on February 11, 2009 at 4:57 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2009 4:30:45 PM

The easiest and most cowardly stance in the world to take is behind a formidable authority enforcing an unjust law. You are so very unimpressive and so very unaware of it too.

2/11/2009 5:06:42 PM

^ not in regards to my post, hopefully???

because i'm impressive juuuust kidding. but i agree with ^

2/11/2009 5:10:30 PM

Quote :

"and i'm sure someone else has pointed this out, but it is a big motherfucking waste of time and money to be giving two shits about people that smoke pot and to punish them when the prison system is already overcrowded AND when the prison system provides excellent training in how to become...a career criminal!!"

i mentioned the first part, but i didn't think about the second part when i thought about pot

the second part is fucking scary. i'm looking forward to the natgeo "reality show" where they spent a year in prison and document what we're turning these people into

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/hard-time/all/Overview

2/11/2009 5:14:48 PM