ew

El yucko.

Sitting here and eating lunch, perusing DR, and ...HOLY SHIT!!!!! ... [throws up into wastebasket in cubicle]

Kinda puts a new spin on songs like "Go Where You Wanna Go" (Do what you wanna do/ With whoever you want to do it with), "California Dreamin'," "My Girl," "Dedicated to the One I Love," and "I Saw Her Again" (Every time I see that girl/ You know I wanna lay down and die./ But I really need that girl/
Though I'm living a lie...)

Sick.

There is so much in her story, I really don't know what disgusts me more.

......incest.....it's ok as long as it stays in the family......

This would have been way better if it ws her and Valerie that were having the sex.

Kinda seems to go with the whole 60's theme of "the better musician you were, the worse of a person."

Legalize drugs

Who else would do that pock-faced mutt?

#8 - A liberal reconsiders the '60s, eh, Rogers?

#8 - A liberal reconsiders the '60s, eh, Rogers?

#12 | Posted by cbob

......he was too young to know what was going on......

......he's just surmizing......

all the leaves are brown...

That whole '60s scene with free sex and lots of drug abuse is full of horror stories for the kids of these free spirits.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2009-09-23 12:15 PM

"That whole '60s scene with free sex and lots of drug abuse is full of horror stories for the kids of these free spirits."

I'm not saying this is true for everyone - but for many people back then all that hippy crap was just an excuse to do drugs and live off their parents without working.

The general insincerity of the 60's is evident by the unprecedented greed and corruptoin exhibited by the boomers now. They spent all this time whining about the "greatest generation" and then sold out as hardcore as possible as soon as the reigns were handed over to them.

A liberal reconsiders the '60s, eh, Rogers?

I don't think it's that unusual for a liberal who grew up in the '80s to be disgusted by some of the '60s liberal excess or the perpetual infatuation the baby boomer generation has with itself.

these free spirits.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2009-09-23 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's what you call em RCADE? I call them fucking wastes. Now, lets have the discussion again about making drugs legal.

Now, lets have the discussion again about making drugs legal.

#18 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-09-23 12:43 PM | Flag: Thinks prohibition works; ignores history; likes drug cartels and the Mexican drug war

#19 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-09-23 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag: Thinks a father shooting up his 10 year old is a Free Spirit.

I don't think it's that unusual for a liberal who grew up in the '80s to be disgusted by some of the '60s liberal excess or the perpetual infatuation the baby boomer generation has with itself.
.......#17 | Posted by rcade

.....I think you are probably too young to have been around during the sixties.....and therefore may not be aware....

....but....

......most of the social activism and counter-culture of the day, was in fact a re-action to the Viet-Nam war.....without the glaring stupidity and waste of the Viet-Nam war, that was fought by unwilling conscripts, dragged kicking and screaming off to war,.......the "social revolution" of the sixties would have been a very different affair....if it would have existed at all......

Those murder laws on the books sure work too LOD - why not just make murder legal also.

The 60's have a rep, for sure. But this sort of thing happened in the 50's and the 70's and any other decade you can name, it just rarely saw the light of day.

The same freedom of expression that sometimes was taken beyond moral and cultural bounds in the 60's also allowed for the ability of these taboos to be talked about and better understood.

Not to mention all the fruits of free expression, like Civil Rights legislation and stopping wars.

This would have been way better if it was her and Valerie that were having the sex.

#7 | Posted by briwo

Strewth.

When scanning the news o' the day yesterday Spud espied a teaser article saying that MacKenzie Phillips would be revealing some hither to untold secret on the upcoming Oprah episode.

Meh, thought Spud.

And then fer just half a sec Spud was thinking wot Briwo was thinking there.

Now we find out it was incest with her Poppa John?

Ew.

Heroin, it's a hell of a drug.

Now, lets have the discussion again about making drugs legal.

Yes, let's.

Just because someone has a substance abuse issue doesn't guarantee bad behaviour just as living a drug free life doesn't guarantee good behaviour.

By legalising drugs we can seperate the recreational drug users from trhe addicts and abusers who can't control themselves.

We also take a signifigant revenue stream away from international organised crime and terrorism.

Yer turn.

Why should we keep doing something that A) Doesn't work and B) Is impossible and C) Corrupts governments and D) Funds crime and terrorism?

Be Well.

Those murder laws on the books sure work too LOD - why not just make murder legal also.

#22 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-09-23 12:49 PM | Flag: Ironically ignores all the murders that happen as a result of drug cartels, gangs, dealers, and the Mexican drug war; Inadvertently supports all that stuff by supporting prohibition

#19 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-09-23 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag: Thinks a father shooting up his 10 year old is a Free Spirit.

#20 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-09-23 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag: Must want alcohol banned because by that logic, not wanting it banned means supporting fathers getting their 10 year olds drunk

I'm starting to think that Elcid is a dealer and gang banger, the way he defends keeping those types in business.

from RCADE above...

"or the perpetual infatuation the baby boomer generation has with itself."

Thank you...glad someone mentioned it.

for all of its wanting Revisionist Histories of
anything that it doesn't agree with, the 'Boomer
Generation' really should take a long hard look
at itself, and just how THOROUGHLY they have
screwed successive generations...(Gen X & Y)...

From Greedonomics, to the unchecked World Population Explosion, to Global Warming and
widespread Environmental Devastation and Destruction, how can they say "their generation"
was any better than the Hippie Generation of the
1960's....At least the Hippies, some of them anyways, paid attention to "What's Going On?"

"Boomers", the generation that gave us Madoff and Milken, and a host of other immoral clowns that
defrauded and defrocked American society and our future can hardly sit around and "Boast of how great they were"...

Granted, it's only some of that generation who are to blame for our current woes. But man, what a cross section of Crooks to chose from...

Right, because some people abused drugs and engaged in other criminal activity, that means nobody can handle them and that the drugs themselves are evil? Please apply that same "logic" to guns, alcohol, cars, sex, junk food, etc.

All the alleged libertarians and cons here bitch about the gov't interference in our lives, and yet, most go on clamoring for more interference, unaware of their hypocrisy.

If drugs were legal, the vast sums spent on prohibition and incarceration could be spent on treatment and education. Actually, it would take only a fraction of that money to transform society, given the immense amount spent, and the paucity left for rehabilitation/education.

Change the idea of drugs as illicit and the users as criminals/rebels and you'd normalize their use to something akin to alcohol--still to be used with caution and understanding, and not without risks for sure--but not the hysterical image currently used now to demonize users.

As for the incest: it's sick, but it's happening all the time, all over the world, by and to plenty of non-drug users. Taking this example and extrapolating it as an indictment of drugs alone is disingenuous fear mongering.

"......most of the social activism and counter-culture of the day, was in fact a re-action to the Viet-Nam war.....without the glaring stupidity and waste of the Viet-Nam war, that was fought by unwilling conscripts, dragged kicking and screaming off to war,.......the "social revolution" of the sixties would have been a very different affair....if it would have existed at all......"

They were right to be against the war. But I don't think what you are saying really holds true when you consider how selfishly most of them went about their protest. They didn't look at the people who went to fight the war as "unwilling conscripts, dragged kicking and screaming off to war". They didn't feel bad for people who went to Vietnam. They had a selfish, holier-than-thou attitude toward vets. And many of the protests went beyond protesting our involvement in the war to openly rooting for the other side. Much of it was thoughtless and mean-spirited. Even today people who would normally deny the ugly side of the anti-war movement back then will defend Jane Fonda going to North Vietnam and straddling one of their big guns that was being use to kill our "poor conscripts". They still don't see anything wrong with that because they never gave a shit about our guys over there and never thought to apply the same scrutiny to the communists that they did the American troops they so loved to demonize.

People today actually use the 60's protestors as an example of how NOT to behave when opposing a war.

That whole '60s scene with free sex and lots of drug abuse is full of horror stories for the kids of these free spirits. -- #8 | Posted by rcade at 2009-09-23 12:15 PM

Hippies and liberals. -- #15 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

LOL. Some years ago I lived in one of those towns sometimes described as "a place where old hippies go to die." I actually started to develop an appreciation for Ann Coulter -- I wanted to sic her on the fanatics who'd show up at City Council meetings and prevent the police from putting security cameras in the parking garages (government surveillance!) and clearing the downtown streets of the meth-heads (young white kids, of course -- no one would tolerate their behavior if they were black men).

Was framing these stories as politely as I could to a long-haired cabbie in a nearby city who asked what it was like to live there, and he shook his head and started explaining "those are BAD hippies."

-They didn't look at the people who went to fight the war as "unwilling conscripts, dragged kicking and screaming off to war". They didn't feel bad for people who went to Vietnam. They had a selfish, holier-than-thou attitude toward vets.

Obviously wasn't there, and only reads news stories from the time.

One supposes that the 4 kids killed in Ohio protesting the war were the, "selfish, holier-than-thou" types.

I think more drugs should be legalized because the societal costs to criminalizing them -- prisons full of non-violent offenders, drug violence -- are too high.

Would some people abuse them? Yes. But do you really want a murderer getting out early because there's a small-time, third-strike pot dealer taking up a bed in his prison?

Arguing the legalization (legalisation for those north of the border) of drugs with libtards is as fun as baning your head against the wall. You see, the connection between behaviors is never admitted to by libs or their drug user friends. Does a recreational drug user always become a child abuser? Nope. Is every child abuser a drug user? Nope. What do they both have in common? Lack of self respect? Poor self esteem? Little value for the human body?

My wife and I were at a party with some "progressive" friends of hers. They kept disappearing one by one into the back of the house until only my wife, their infant son and I were left in the family room. They did not have a discussion with us about what they were doing, nor did they ask us if we could keep an eye on their son - just disappeared into the back of the house. These were not "bad" people - they were not criminals, they did not molest kittens, they just felt their need to toke up in the back room was greater than their responsibility to their own son.

You tards may never admit to it, but once you toke up, shoot up or snort up, your world is fucked up.

As to why the laws won't work - easily answered - humans are involved. Humans with their weaknesses. Humans with their selfish interests. Humans with proclivities to taking the easy path.

Libtards on the DR always claim that the cons only care about children before their born. I would argue that libtards don't care about children at all - just their own selfish interests. Why else would you want 10 year olds to be shot up by their fathers?

Like so many other arguments - I have just wasted time and energy speaking on deaf ears. Congrats libs for bringing down society one toke at a time.

Your belief that only liberals abuse drugs is pretty amazing, El Cid. Get out much?

Rushbo the Oxy-moron is a Lib?
Who knew?

only liberals abuse drugs

Must be true.

" Congrats libs for bringing down society one toke at a time."

You sure are an uptight fucker. Have a bowl and relax.

"As to why the laws won't work - easily answered - humans are involved. Humans with their weaknesses. Humans with their selfish interests. Humans with proclivities to taking the easy path."---ElCid

Exactly. Um, you were talking about prohibition, right?

while I never used drugs, I believe adults should have a right to do so without gov't interferrence.

legalize every drug from pot to crank to viagra... give immunity to the big pharmacies and let the profits roll. if u must, place a tax to pay for treatment for anyone who wants help.

Ah the 60's free love, lotsa drugs, no aids-good times!

Your belief that only liberals abuse drugs is pretty amazing, El Cid. Get out much?

#35 | Posted by rcade at 2009-09-23 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

I said that where again? Based on comments posted on the DR on drug legalization issues, most if not all the DR libs are for it. There are, I am sure, a token amount of cons for it also. I do not claim that drug abuse is a con or lib issue - the legalization of drug use is predominately fought for by the left.

Does that clear it up RCADE?

-Ah the 60's free love, lotsa drugs, no aids-good times!

True for the most part. A lot of people today don't know what they missed.... plus, great music!

Sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll was more than an expression, it was a lifestyle, though mostly limited to college days for most people.

" no aids "

Yeah, syphilis was no big deal.
~Al Capone

Exactly. Um, you were talking about prohibition, right?

#39 | Posted by regime_change at 2009-09-23 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nope, current drug laws. But it is applicable to prohibition also. Alchohol is not a gateway drug like MJ is. - and he throws the bait into the water.

Now before you jump off the bridge, just because a law or program has been unsuccessful doesn't mean we should stop trying right? I mean, welfare and a host of other social programs have not eleminated poverty and it is still around and argued for by the left-right?

**** They were right to be against the war. But I don't think what you are saying really holds true when you consider how selfishly most of them went about their protest. They didn't look at the people who went to fight the war as "unwilling conscripts, dragged kicking and screaming off to war". They didn't feel bad for people who went to Vietnam.*****

.....I was there and you are wrong on each point.....first, the Viet Namese had done nothing to us.....we were Napalming them, bombing them, and shooting them by the thousands......we were committing murder on a grand scale.....1.5 million Viets dead by the end of the war......and yes....Americans were being dragged kicking and screaming off to war, in fact tens of thousand of Americans fled to Europe and Canada.....and yes....many of us really really felt bad that we were murdering these Viet people for no reason at all.......

**** They had a selfish, holier-than-thou attitude toward vets. ****

......the vets were conscripts....they were us.....when they came home they got the same cold shoulder that Iraqi vets get today once the airport celebration is over.....

*** And many of the protests went beyond protesting our involvement in the war to openly rooting for the other side. *****

........there was no rooting for the other side (Jane Fonda made a fool of herself, sort of like the Paris Hilton of the day ).....but by the same token, no reasonable person could root for our side....the Viet Namese had never done a thing to us.....WE WENT THERE AND MURDERED 1.5 MILLION PEOPLE FOR NO REASON......who could root for our side ??....and what would the cheers have been ??...."LET'S KILL A MILLION MORE" ??

****Much of it was thoughtless and mean-spirited. Even today people who would normally deny the ugly side of the anti-war movement back then will defend Jane Fonda going to North Vietnam and straddling one of their big guns that was being use to kill our "poor conscripts". They still don't see anything wrong with that because they never gave a shit about our guys over there and never thought to apply the same scrutiny to the communists that they did the American troops they so loved to demonize.*****

......"ugly side of the anti-war movement" ?? ...could the ugly side of the anti-war movement have been half as ugly as the war itself ??....the anti-war movement was protesting against mass murder and demanding that the government stop the senseless slaughter, as well as stop sending Americans to die for no reason at all.......I can't understand how you can compare an "ugly" demonstration to murdering people......both ours and theirs.....

****People today actually use the 60's protestors as an example of how NOT to behave when opposing a war.
#30 | Posted by Sully*****

......wrong again.....you seem to imply that there is a nice, polite, patriotic, way to stop mass murder......if only there was.....

"Obviously wasn't there, and only reads news stories from the time."

So all the news reports, books and videos we've seen are lies/fakes? Vets from back then have been very consistent in portraying their homecoming as largely a non-event that wasn't ackowledged except by those who went out of their ways to be pricks about it. Did they all get together and decide to lie? My father was drafted but didn't go to Vietnam. But he knows what it was like to wear an army uniform back then. Is he part of the conspiracy? The affection that some in the anti-war movement showed for "Uncle Ho" is a myth too? They anti-war movement focused on NVA/VC war crimes as much as it did on American war crimes?

This is why others have mentioned your generation trying to re-write its own history.

"One supposes that the 4 kids killed in Ohio protesting the war were the, "selfish, holier-than-thou" types."

They could have been. Being shot doesn't make them saints. Most likely each of them had their own personality that fell somewhere between sinner and saint at varying levels.

-They could have been. Being shot doesn't make them saints.

Only heard point whizz over his head.

Also, believes the "spitting on soldiers" myth.

".....I was there and you are wrong on each point.....first, the Viet Namese had done nothing to us.....we were Napalming them, bombing them, and shooting them by the thousands......we were committing murder on a grand scale.....1.5 million Viets dead by the end of the war......and yes....Americans were being dragged kicking and screaming off to war, in fact tens of thousand of Americans fled to Europe and Canada.....and yes....many of us really really felt bad that we were murdering these Viet people for no reason at all......."

I didn't say anything that contradicts any of this, Skizz. I said that the people who were able to avoid going for whatever reason didn't give a shit about the Americans who had to go fight the war and in many cases looked down on the returning vets.

I guess this is a shock to you left wing libs.

token amount of cons

I'm a con who could use some token ...

Sorry I do not see how the drug war helps society. It is just as easy for me to get drugs today as it was 20 years ago. The money I spend possibly ends up with drug lords rather than with the government or some honest US farmer. I just really do not see why you are so hyped that we fight a substance no worse and arguably better than alcohol.

All the alleged libertarians

Show me a libertarian against legalization and I will show you a neo-con in libertarian clothes.

"Only heard point whizz over his head.

Also, believes the "spitting on soldiers" myth."

That's a pretty much short strawman of a post in response to alot of questions I raised.

Damn.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Nope, current drug laws. But it is applicable to prohibition also. Alchohol is not a gateway drug like MJ is. - and he throws the bait into the water.

And the fish leaps out to grab it.

The only reason MJ is a gateway drug is you have to find an illegal drug dealer to get it. Drug dealers try to have access to a range of drugs both because more sales = more profits and there is prestige in being the guy who can get anything. If I could get my MJ in the same place you got your beer I would have no idea where to get anything else.

@ Cid. So, you (perhaps unwittingly) proved my point--the laws won't/don't work.
Drug abuse and trafficking will always be a serious problem given that we spend all our money trying to stop the unstoppable--human nature.

Better to treat and educate, cut out illegal cartel profits and the staggering human toll of the current Prohibition model.
Don't give up trying to stop all of society's ills, but at this point, we need to change the scheme. This one is not working.

I'm not really going to touch your "alcohol is not a gateway drug but MJ is" assertion, other than to say I've seen plenty of people try coke or whatever for the first time while fucked up on alcohol. Most stoners I know don't drink, and certainly not to the excess exhibited by so many who are strictly on the sauce.

And, of course, alcohol remains the most dangerous drug on the planet. Just have a peek at drunk driving stats and rehab centers for that, um, sobering fact.

"I can't understand how you can compare an "ugly" demonstration to murdering people......both ours and theirs....."

Because you've already decided that I'm wrong and that I'm saying things that I haven't said. The ugly side of it is the treating of our vets like shit when they got home and the demonizing of our troops while pretending the NVA/VC forces didn't commit similar attrocities.

"......wrong again.....you seem to imply that there is a nice, polite, patriotic, way to stop mass murder......if only there was....."

Actually you are 100% wrong on this. People go WAY out of their way to say they support the troops and not the war precisely because of how the 60's protestors acted. I don't care if you were alive back then or in Vietnam or whatever.... You are completely talking out your ass on this point.

"Brevity is the soul of wit."

Nobody thinks your strawman was witty.

I said that the people who were able to avoid going for whatever reason didn't give a shit about the Americans who had to go fight the war and in many cases looked down on the returning vets.
......#49 | Posted by Sully

......there were a few, much publicized incidents of returning soldiers getting into disputes with people.....

......but all those people who were marching against the war were not just the draftees, they were mothers, fathers and neighbors......and yes...we cared.......

......I lost one uncle to that war, if I could meet LBJ, I would spit in his face for what he did to my family, my uncle had three young boys under the age of 10, who never saw their father again.....and for what ?.....

......that was an entirely optional war that could have been stopped before it began....we should have protested sooner and harder......that's all I can say......

#34 - Do you drink, El Cid? Is "your world fucked up" when you do? Or maybe you don't. Fine. That's your choice. But most people you encounter every day do, at least now and then. Are they fucked up? Are they ignoring their responsibility to their children every time they grab a beer? Can there be no reasonable level of use?

Is your world so clearly defined, so black and white, that you can simply write off the human instinct to seek pleasure through chemistry? Most people use some sort of drug, whether it's alcohol, pot, cigarettes, pain pills, or whatever.

Of course you can take too much, or too often, and wreck your career, your family, your health. And I was joking with Rogers about "a liberal reconsidering the '60s." It's pretty obvious pure hedonism does lead to trouble, and it can hurt other people. But it's ridiculous to somehow link casual pot users with John Phillips' disgusting behavior, calling out "libtards" and asking "why else would you want 10 year olds to be shot up by their fathers?" Which liberals wanted that again?

Stupid beyond words.

Pointing out that you are wrong about the protesters generally having a, "selfish, holier-than-thou attitude toward vets" isn't a strawman, it's a fact.

Particularly those who died while protesting their friends and family being sent off to a police action pretending to be a war.

I am sickened.

Does that clear it up RCADE?

Yep. But drug legalization is more a libertarian issue than a liberal one.

-libertarian issue than a liberal one

The right tends to find satisfaction in portraying the terms liberal, libertine, and sometimes even libertarian, as meaning the same things.

You tards may never admit to it, but once you toke up, shoot up or snort up, your world is fucked up.

#34 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

"All right, brain. You don't like me and I don't like you, but let's just do this and I can get back to killing you with beer."

ElCid Simpson

"The only reason MJ is a gateway drug is you have to find an illegal drug dealer to get it. Drug dealers try to have access to a range of drugs both because more sales = more profits and there is prestige in being the guy who can get anything. If I could get my MJ in the same place you got your beer I would have no idea where to get anything else."

Nicely done, Tao. Nicely done. Exactly my response--well, said better--when someone makes the gateway claim. I haven known plenty of people who use pot regularly but are completely uninterested in anything else. Hell, I knew a pot dealer once who would not _deal_ anything else.

Making the gateway claim shows ignorance. It's almost as good as the "teaching kids sex ed will make them into sex fiends" argument.

#64 - Uh, yeah. We're excited by this, big guy. Go form a third party already.

As a early sixties (age) I must agree with the definition of Boomers being Egocentric.
My father worked 2 jobs to give us middle class
vacations and etc.
I grew up with no appreciation of material things!
His early death at 63 made me reexamine my values.
Guilty as charged!

#60 | Posted by cbob

Nope - don't drink.

write off the human instinct to seek pleasure

There are multiple human instincts we ignore every day for the sake of being civilized.

If you read further in my posts you will see I talk about how the laws are not working because we are human. Why should we give up trying?

There are those who find no fault in drug use and there are those who differ in this opinion. Claiming that someone is stupid or racist just because they have a different opinion is - well stupid beyond words.

Drugs are currently illegal - as some are so quick to point out about abortion - it is the law of the land, get over it.

Compare the laws to speeding. Who speeds? Do the laws impede some people from speeding? Yes. Do they not impede others from speeding? Yes. Speeding kills. Drugs kill. Neither kills every time the act is committed, but if you stop one child from becoming a drug addict because it is illegal - the law has merit. And yes, there is an industry to help you break the speeding law - radar detectors and the like. Even these are illegal in a few states (VA for example). Do people kill over radar detectors? No - point of concession. Do people kill while using radar detectors? Yes.

Alcohol is too entrenched in society to be made illegal again - not a good excuse but one that may pass the test here.

If you think alcohol is deadly, making drugs legal would soon eclipse that death rate (link needed). Think about it. If drug use goes up, so will drugged driving, drug overdoses, drugged up murders, etc....

Basically it is a losing argument on both our parts. Drugs will probably, I say PROBABLY, never be legal, and drug use will never go away. STALEMATE.

I don't think drugs should be legal, all of them. I think marijuana should be decriminalized.

See earlier posts about gateway, etc.

Making the gateway claim shows ignorance. It's almost as good as the "teaching kids sex ed will make them into sex fiends" argument.

#67 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-09-23 02:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

#70 - Fair enough. Drug use, indeed, will never go away.

I also appreciate your more respectful tone. Calling people "libtards" makes me want to call you stupid. When you use reason, as you did in your last post, my reply will likewise be respectful.

isn't this a crime? she shoulda considered taking the 5th. however cathartic this might be for her, most of america is gonna blow chunks.

isn't this a crime?

40 years ago. I doubt the statute of limitations is that long with drug use.

i was talking about the incest.

Oh, well she was the victim and the assailant is dead.

#74 - All the chunks are blown/ And the toilet's full (and the toilet's full...)

Yeah, I'm not sure I'd ever want to let that particular cat out of the bag. But I suppose she needs to "heal" - to get it out and close that chapter.

#77 - Is that true if both are adults, Kanrei? I don't see the word "force" used, and she apparently had reached the age of consent.

I'm really going to be grossed out if she cops to having blown Schneider.

CBOB,
Ya know, I don't know. I live in the south, but I am not THAT Southern =D

Oh, well she was the victim and the assailant is dead.

#77 | POSTED BY KANREI AT 2009-09-23 02:21 PM | REPLY | FLAG

thought she was consenting adult at the time? that would make both of them criminals.

That's sick!!!! She should've died a virgin like all the other buttface dawgs

And that Mackenzie Phillips had sex with her dad is sick too!!!

Does this mean I have had sex with John Phillips?

ewe..........

ElCid, I didn't make claims about overall use and effects. I was addressing the gateway argument. Tao spelled out the refutation incredibly clearly. If you don't at least see some merit in that, then you're just being biased. Your choice, but be honest, willya?

And I guess I'll have to read up on those studies (in my free time). Cancer-causing chemicals the same as cigarettes. Funny. Studies must have been funded by Big Tobacco. (Okay, that was a biased response. But seriously, as many chemicals? Compared to cigarettes, the producers of which don't even try to argue anymore that they don't add chemicals?)

"Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per day may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day."

That's a load.

5 joints per day?

Someone is smoking shitty weed.

Milk is the gateway drug.

Every single junkie drank milk first.

Gate way drug my ass!!!

(but if you want to know why people consider it that, I'll be happy to tell you.)

"Studies show"

[CITATION NEEDED]

Drug War solution: Legalize everything

We've heard a lot about the terrible death toll Mexico has suffered during the drug war over 11,000 souls so far. This helps to account for the startling lack of controversy that greeted last week's news that Mexico had suddenly decriminalized drugs not just marijuana but also cocaine, LSD, and heroin. In place of the outrage and threats that U.S. officials expressed when Mexico tried to decriminalize in 2006 was a mild statement, from our new drug czar, that we are going to take a "wait and see" approach.

Still, we've heard nothing about the American death toll. Isn't that strange? So far as I can tell, nobody has even tried to come up with a number.

Until now. I've done some rough math, and this is what I found:

6,487.

To repeat, that's 6,487 dead Americans. Throw in overdoses and the cost of this country's paralyzing drug laws is closer to 15,000 lives.

"5 joints per day?

Someone is smoking shitty weed."

Or very tasty weed.

Well I smoke very tasty weed and if I smoked 5 joints of it per day I would be a sofa cushion.

To repeat, that's 6,487 dead Americans. Throw in overdoses and the cost of this country's paralyzing drug laws is closer to 15,000 lives.

#90 | Posted by nullifidian

How many of these overdose deaths were directly attributable to Herb, only Herb, and nothing but Herb, no other substance in the dead person's system?

From the looks of the holes in her face, it appears as though her dad was doing it wrong.

Well I smoke very tasty weed and if I smoked 5 joints of it per day I would be a sofa cushion.

#92 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-09-23 03:00 PM | Reply |

Your posts indicate that you are.

"How many of these overdose deaths were directly attributable to Herb, only Herb, and nothing but Herb, no other substance in the dead person's system?"

What are you, nuts? Herb can't kill a fly by itself.

Compare the laws to speeding. Who speeds? Do the laws impede some people from speeding? Yes. Do they not impede others from speeding? Yes. Speeding kills. Drugs kill. Neither kills every time the act is committed, but if you stop one child from becoming a drug addict because it is illegal - the law has merit. And yes, there is an industry to help you break the speeding law - radar detectors and the like. Even these are illegal in a few states (VA for example). Do people kill over radar detectors? No - point of concession. Do people kill while using radar detectors? Yes.
#70 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-09-23 02:10 PM

Speeding is against the law because it can kill "other people." Laws are designed to protect people from other people doing harm to them. Comparing to drugs, which only hurts the user, is a non-sequiter. If a person gives their kid drugs, that person is hurting another person. THAT would still be illegal, if hypothetically drugs were to be legalized. Same thing with your murder example. Your little examples are shot, and retarded.

Alcohol is too entrenched in society to be made illegal again - not a good excuse but one that may pass the test here.

#70 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-09-23 02:10 PM

Try again.

I'm still not sure why ElCid defends drug cartels and Mexican drug wars. Maybe he has ties.

Is she California dreaming?
Now we know what "I saw her again last night" was really about.

I need a funny name to call ElCid while I'm bashing him over the head with common sense logic. Anyone? All I can think of is "Tits."

What are you, nuts? Herb can't kill a fly by itself.

#95 | Posted by nullifidian

{PSsssssst.... Nulli.... That was already kinda the answer to the question. Was trying to "smoke out" the oppo.}

All I can think of is Elcidiot. That 5 hours of sleep isn't helping.

"Pointing out that you are wrong about the protesters generally having a, "selfish, holier-than-thou attitude toward vets" isn't a strawman, it's a fact."

That isn't what I was calling a strawman. Another example of a boomer trying to change recorded history after the fact......

And it is absolutely true that many in the anti-war crowd looked down their noses at vets. It has been documented ad nauseum. And why wouldn't they? For the most part the hippies had more money, were better educated and had all their limbs.......

Again, you're showing your retard genes here. The reason alcohol is legal is because prohibition didn't work. Gangs were running the show, people were dying as a result, and yet people still kept on drinking.

Well put.

Wouldn't the same apply to drug dealers today?

Hence, shouldn't they be legal?

"Was trying to "smoke out" the oppo."

Groovy, man. Is it 4:20 yet?

Again, you're showing your retard genes here. The reason alcohol is legal is because prohibition didn't work. Gangs were running the show, people were dying as a result, and yet people still kept on drinking.

Try again.

#96 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-09-23 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag:
Well, fuckstick - how's that for a nickname while I beat you over the head?

If you would have read upthread, I said that prohibition did not work for the same reasons we have difficulty in enforceing our current laws. Go back to your good week shithead.

Drug use is not a victimless crime as long as drugs are illegal - to say the least. I even gave an example of one, only one, way where a child was the recipient of the parents selfishness about toking up. Your the stupid one here. But, keep telling yourself that drugs are cool and make you feel good without any repercussions - and then toke up so that it makes sense.

Somewhere it was.......

Well put.

Wouldn't the same apply to drug dealers today?

Hence, shouldn't they be legal?

#103 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-09-23 03:44 PM

Drugs are drugs whether you drink or smoke yours.

This Bud's For You has multiple meanings.

ANYONE who drinks alcohol and speaks out against other intoxicants is a fucking hypocrite.

Drug use is not a victimless crime as long as drugs are illegal - to say the least.

#105 | Posted by ELBitchTits at 2009-09-23 03:50 PM

Your the stupid one here.
#105 | Posted by ELBitchTits at 2009-09-23 03:50

Getting intoxicated is human nature which is why humans have ALWAYS gotten intoxicated. To control which intoxicants people use is to control people.

"Drugs are drugs whether you drink or smoke yours."

What we need is a new definition of the word "drug." The late philosopher of consciousness, Terence McKenna, said a drug is anything that causes unexamined, compulsive behavior. A drug, then, is something that consumes our lives. By this definition, a cigarette is a drug, caffeine is a drug and alcohol is a drug. When we look at it from this perspective, television is also a drug. And the average American spends three to seven hours every day getting intimately hooked to the flickering I-V of the cathode ray tube. Yet television eats at our creative faculties like a cancer, alcohol dumbs us down (and helps us mingle), while cigarettes are nothing but dirty syringes for nicotine injection. These substances are socially acceptable and perfectly legal all the while causing serious harm at astronomical social costs. "

I wish I could find it, there was a website for non-users that support legalization of drugs (might've been just weed). It was a great site, and even had a list of prominent liberals and conservatives that supported legalization to take any partisan bickering out of it.

In other words, ElFuckNut, you don't have to be a user, or even a liberal (the horror) to accept that prohibition doesn't work.

William F Buckley was the first conservative I ever heard argue for legalization. The right lost a great man when he died.

Thanks LOaD - I needed a conversation today with someone who could not deal with reality sans help, and you provided it. Now like I said before, go take a hit and tell yourself that its OK. Keep telling yourself that over and over. Just like repeating the liberal agenda over and over, you yourself will believe it.

You don't have to be a murderer or a speeder or any other law breaker to understand laws don't work. Name a law that EVERYONE obeys? What, people break laws?

Again, the argument is lost here. You obviously use and don't care what anyone else thinks on the subject unless they agree with you. So I tell ya what - You continue to break the law by toking up and I won't. You continue to fund the druglords and other criminals associated with drugs and I won't. There is a reason its called "dope".

CNN/Time Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. Oct. 23-24, 2002. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE 3.1.

.

"Do you favor or oppose the legalization of marijuana?"

10/02 4/86 3/83 .

% % % .

Favor 34 18 24 .

Oppose 59 78 73 .

Not sure 7 4 4

Interesting how public opionion was swayed during the war on drugs hearty years.

10/02 4/86 3/83 .

Hey ElStupido, that's 2002 data. Your own link shows support for legalization up to 46% in 2009--and that includes dumbass red states. The trend isn't going your way. Hahahahahaha.

Poll: For the first time majority of Californians support marijuana legalization

Posted April 5, 2009

A field poll commissioned by Oaksterdam University between March 16th and March 21st shows for the first time a majority of California voters are in favor of taxing and regulating adult cannabis consumption similar to alcohol. 54% of those polled believed cannabis should be legal for adults while 39% are opposed and 7% are undecided.

A majority of voters indicated they would vote for a measure to allow cities and counties the option to tax and regulate cannabis and make adult cannabis consumption legal (53% Support/41% Do Not Support/7% Undecided) The economic benefits of taxing cannabis persuaded many voters to support the proposed ballot initiative.

58% of California voters believe regulations for cannabis should be the same or less strict than those for alcohol.

Poll Results:

The Same as Alcohol - 50%
More Strict Than Alcohol - 40%
Less Strict Than Alcohol - 8%
Undecided - 2%

Polls were conducted from 600 California voters by EMC research.

#115 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-09-23 04:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hey Null, where did I say it was going? I made the comment about how it seemed affected by the Just Say No program in the 80's. Try READING the post instead of thinking with your anus and then typing.

In 2009 the poll showed

CBS News Poll. March 12-16, 2009. N=1,142 adults nationwide. MoE 3.

.

"Do you think that the use of marijuana should be made legal or not?"

.

Legal Not Legal Unsure .

% % % .

3/12-16/09 31 63 6 .

1/11-15/09 41 52 7 .

7/79 27 69 4

Dickwad. 63% - in March of this year. Again, a higher percentage than Clinton got elected on - both times. Pothead. CA - who cares. Its going to be Mexico before TX is.

Thanks LOaD
#114 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-09-23 04:47 PM

Now like I said before, go take a hit and tell yourself that its OK. Keep telling yourself that over and over. Just like repeating the liberal agenda over and over, you yourself will believe it.
#114 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-09-23 04:47 PM

You don't have to be a murderer or a speeder or any other law breaker to understand laws don't work. Name a law that EVERYONE obeys? What, people break laws?
#114 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-09-23 04:47 PM

Again, the argument is lost here. You obviously use and don't care what anyone else thinks on the subject unless they agree with you. So I tell ya what - You continue to break the law by toking up and I won't.#114 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-09-23 04:47 PM

You continue to fund the druglords and other criminals associated with drugs and I won't. There is a reason its called "dope".#114 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-09-23 04:47 PM

CNN/Time Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. Oct. 23-24, 2002. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE 3.1.
...
Even now, more people are against legalizing MJ than voted for Clinton - both times (percentage wise not actual votes).
#114 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-09-23 04:47 PM

"Pothead. CA - who cares. Its going to be Mexico before TX is."

As California goes, El Stupido, so goes the nation. Maybe not whatever dumbass red state you live in.

If we legalized...

The government would be able to track and regulate the substances people are already using. How is that a bad thing?

There would be a new source of tax revenue. How is that a bad thing?

Some farmer and head shop owner would make the profit instead of a drug lord. How is that a bad thing?

People who are a danger to their kids because of their use would be treated just like people who are a danger to their kids because of alcohol abuse. How is that a bad thing?

Gangs, drug lords, and dealers would lose control over a lot of people, would have much of their incentive to kill and intimidate removed, and Mexico might be a stable country again. Once again, how is that a bad thing?

LOD, obviously we see the problem from different sides. I disagree with drug use and you don't. For what its worth, I will support candidates who see my point of view, and you will do so also. Best we can do. Nothing on the DR will change the laws.

If you are not a user, sorry to have made the accusation. You say that drug use, even when legal, would be a victimless crime. You say I ignore the history of prohibition. I say that normalizing a behavior to the detriment of the human condition is a crime (M. Phillips even though a willing participant to her fathers "love" was demeaned and victimized - and she was an adult).

Again, this is a black or white topic on both sides. Has more to do with ones personal vision of what constitutes moral society. The only right answer is the one in one's own head.

As California goes, El Stupido, so goes the nation. Maybe not whatever dumbass red state you live in.

#119 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-09-23 05:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Um, no. TX does just fine without the left coast. CA can't even balance their own budget.

To add a third point of view- I oppose drug laws mainly because I don't see where the Constitution allows it. Logic tells me that, if it took an Amendment to make alcohol illegal, then one would be needed for other drugs as well. I know this has been answered already, but I'll be damned if I know.

If we legalized...

The government would be able to track and regulate the substances people are already using. How is that a bad thing?

There would be a new source of tax revenue. How is that a bad thing?

Some farmer and head shop owner would make the profit instead of a drug lord. How is that a bad thing?

People who are a danger to their kids because of their use would be treated just like people who are a danger to their kids because of alcohol abuse. How is that a bad thing?

Gangs, drug lords, and dealers would lose control over a lot of people, would have much of their incentive to kill and intimidate removed, and Mexico might be a stable country again. Once again, how is that a bad thing?

All valid points from your side - all invalid from my side due to personal distaste for drug use. I just don't want the kid down the street to know one day the country thinks it would be ok to become a pothead. Did your mother want you to grow up to be a pothead? Not saying you did, but did she want you to? Does it make parents proud to have a drug user for a son or daughter?

I often use the parent litmus test for deciding moral issues - would my mother be proud or not of me if I did this, or did not do this.

#123 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-09-23 05:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

You think laws are made to follow the constitution? :)

"The government would be able to track and regulate the substances people are already using. "

It would be great if you could go to a pharmacy and get pure Delsyd.

" I oppose drug laws mainly because I don't see where the Constitution allows it."

On that point...

"The right to control one's own consciousness is the quintessence of freedom. If freedom is to mean anything, it must mean that each person has an inviolable right to think for him or herself. It must mean, at a minimum, that each person is free to direct one's own consciousness; one's own underlying mental processes, and one's beliefs, opinions, and worldview. This is self-evident and axiomatic."

Nice addition Null!

I just don't want the kid down the street to know one day the country thinks it would be ok to become a pothead

It's no more okay to be a pothead than it is to be an alcoholic.

Those terms imply a degree a degree of impaired or destroyed ability to function as a productive and law abiding citizen.

That sed the vast majority of pot smokers, like drinkers, are recreational users not abusers.

Anti-drug laws turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals unneccessarily.

Anti-drug laws werk, in effect, to be a license to print money for international terrorists and organised crime.

Less money spent imprisoning drug users means more money for addiction therapy and other harm prevention programs.

Increased revenue for government means a decreased revenue stream for the bad guys.

It's freaking Win/Win.

Be Well.

#127 | Posted by nullifidian

Nice find, Nulli

Good eye.

Be Well.

Increased revenue for government means a decreased revenue stream for the bad guys.

It's freaking Win/Win.

I agree with your post and the position that the criminalization of drugs is a waste of time and dollars.

But the part where we can grow the size of govt and expect something positive out of it?????

I'll call it just a Win/

It's no more okay to be a pothead than it is to be an alcoholic.

I would partially agree with that except alchoholism is a known disease. As many point out here, pot is not supposed to be addictive, thereby making a "pothead" a pothead by choice rather than physical abnormality.

If you were to say a "drunkard" in lieu of alcoholic your arguement would make more sense. As I stated above, I don't drink but think that at this point it is too late to try to prohibit alcohol in the US. There are dry counties throughout the country. I do not know and have not seen statistics for crime in those counties or how many alcoholics were created there due to prohibition.

I would again pose to you spud - would your mother be proud you smoke pot? Is that how she wanted you to grow up? Not saying I don't do things my mother would not be proud of, but why add to the list for my own selfish gain?

If freedom is to mean anything, it must mean that each person has an inviolable right to think for him or herself.

So you would be against taxes on cigarettes and other "bad" behaviors then NULL?

I just ask because that is the avenue healthcare reform is going down - see San Fran and the tax on cola (vicitimless drink).

"So you would be against taxes on cigarettes and other "bad" behaviors then NULL?"

I don't really care for "sin" taxes. Let's tax bibles instead.

"Let's tax bibles instead."

Don't forget MegaChurches, Pat Robertson, etc.

The headline is misleading. It implies MacKenzie Phillips agreed to the sexual encounter. No--she was raped by her father. It is a poorly worded headline, and Rcade should receive a dump.

All valid points from your side - all invalid from my side due to personal distaste for drug use. I just don't want the kid down the street to know one day the country thinks it would be ok to become a pothead. Did your mother want you to grow up to be a pothead? Not saying you did, but did she want you to? Does it make parents proud to have a drug user for a son or daughter?

I often use the parent litmus test for deciding moral issues - would my mother be proud or not of me if I did this, or did not do this.

#124 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-09-23 05:24 PM

IE. personal moral distastes aren't what we use to make laws (or shouldn't).

I disagree with drug use and you don't.
#121 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-09-23 05:19 PM

If you are not a user, sorry to have made the accusation.
#121 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-09-23 05:19 PM

You say that drug use, even when legal, would be a victimless crime. You say I ignore the history of prohibition. I say that normalizing a behavior to the detriment of the human condition is a crime (M. Phillips even though a willing participant to her fathers "love" was demeaned and victimized - and she was an adult).
#121 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-09-23 05:19 PM

Again, this is a black or white topic on both sides. Has more to do with ones personal vision of what constitutes moral society. The only right answer is the one in one's own head.
#121 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-09-23 05:19 PM

I guess when her neighbors heard her say "Give it to me daddy!" late at night, she really was talking to her daddy. If they only knew....

I wonder if Chelsea Clinton will ever write a book???

I don't think it's that unusual for a liberal who grew up in the '80s to be disgusted by some of the '60s liberal excess or the perpetual infatuation the baby boomer generation has with itself.

I'm not liberal but I can't help resent the 'children' of the '60's. The baby boomers have taken all the wealth accumulated by past generations and flushed it down the toilet, replacing it with shit that isn't worth anything. Much of our current economic situation is on their heads. Not just the hippies but all the boomers. THANKS GUYS!

"Thanks guys...."

What you wrote is nonsense. You make me too tired to explain it. I would like to know how old you are, though.

As for marijuana being addictive, I've met many users that state yes. Use of drugs is not "controlling your consciousness", any more than getting on a roller coaster that may dump you on a turn is controlling your physical motion.

....and everyone needs to know, especially if it sells her book.

zed, are you trying to make sense? Consciousness is a sensory, social and personal,sometimes imaginary experience. Drugs often change the sensory part of consciouness in powerful ways, especially LSD, Mescalin and Psilocybin. Users can feel out of control, because they can't turn the effect off at will, it has to run its course. Roller coasters do control your physical motion for the duration of the ride.

" Use of drugs is not "controlling your consciousness", any more than getting on a roller coaster that may dump you on a turn is controlling your physical motion."

Or getting on your knees and praying to Jeebus?

Hell, Jesus was probably a shroomie himself.

I'm not gonna say it means anything, but my mother is not troubled by occasional pot use. She, btw, is about as straight as they come. She might drink a fuzzy navel twice a year, she probably tried pot once or a few times (being a suburban wife in the early 70s), and she smokes a cigarette only if fishing, to drive away mosquitoes. I haven't polled her recently, but I bet she'd say that pot use is generally less detrimental than alcohol use.

Good night. : )

She, btw, is about as straight as they come.
#147 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-09-23 11:11 PM

As for marijuana being addictive, I've met many users that state yes.

#143 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-23 09:25 PM | Reply | Flag Bullshit

I doubt you've ever met anyone who had said pot smoking is addictive---mainly because smoking pot is not addictive. There are no withdrawal symptoms--not even a chill. If you were correct, there would be clinics for pot smoker withdrawal only. Got a link to ONE?

you gotta make your own kinda music
sing your own special song

Really cool find, Null.

The only pot smokers claiming pot is addictive are either so psychologically screwed up they feel they have to be high to deal with reality, or the types who like to blame any and everything but themselves for their problems.

Even when it comes to hard drugs, prohibition doesn't work. What does work is making it boring, taking the thrill part out and changing society's attitudes to view heavy/dependant drug use as an "uncool" sickness, and giving people the tools to kick their habit.

Not to mention just how immoral it is to wage a war on millions of your own citizens. Criminalizing drugs just creates real criminals. If you want someone to get out of the penal system, you have to give them something to lose, you have to give them positive reinforcement as well as the threat of going back. Our current system does nothing but promote recividism though. People get out, they can't get jobs, they end up stuck only associating with the low end of society, with little to nothing to lose and often only illicit substances to fall back on for the entirely natural trait of self-medicating to try and feel better. They still need money though, maybe more for an increased drug habit, and so more violent and dangerous means of getting along become easier to turn to.

Just stop the cycle. Legalize. I promise my bong and i won't hurt you if you just put down the rice crispies treats. :)

We're O.K with this and they should have the right to marry.

The Democrat party!

We'd denounce it as immoral, but a naked boy just ran by and now noone is here to!

The Republican Party

We're O.K with this and they should have the right to marry.

buzkiller

#152 | Posted by buzkiller at 2009-09-24 03:56 AM | Reply | Flag FTFY

"She, btw, is about as straight as they come.
#147 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-09-23 11:11 PM
That's not what she told me."

Oooh, so funny.

"I doubt you've ever met anyone who had said pot smoking is addictive---mainly because smoking pot is not addictive. There are no withdrawal symptoms--not even a chill. If you were correct, there would be clinics for pot smoker withdrawal only. Got a link to ONE?"

There's addictive, and then there's addictive. The usual line is, it's not physically addictive; it's psychologically addictive. I think that's manifest in finding it hard to stop--not withdrawing, but just not being able to put it down easily, thinking about getting high while you're doing something else. You know, like sex. : )

Okay, that was creepy given the actual content of this thread... and LoD's quip about my mother. (Father, I want to kill you. Mother, I want to-- )

But here I really do agree with Bob (hm). Not addictive in the usual sense--and by extension, not as bad as "hard drugs." Still not a healthy thing to do, but neither is eating these days.

5 joints per day?

Pikers.

I smoke two joints in the morning
I smoke two joints at night
I smoke two joint in the afternoon
It makes me feel all right

I smoke two joints in time of peace
And two in time of war
I smoke two joints before I smoke two joints
And then I smoke two more

Daddy he once told me
"Son, you be hard workin' man"
And momma she once told me
"Son, you do the best you can"
Then one day I meet a man
He came to me and said
"Hard work good and hard work fine
But first take care of head"

Whoa, rawk me to the night
Ja say

~Sublime

* DB *

BRB.

Be Well.

"I doubt you have met anyone who said pot smoking is addictive..."

I've met scads of them. A number have sought professional help, and many enter Twelve Step programs.

Of course marijuana isn't physically addictive. That's not what the addicts are complaining about. It's a different sort of monkey, but it's one their backs nonetheless.

That's not what the addicts are complaining about. It's a different sort of monkey, but it's one their backs nonetheless.

Marijuana is addictive in the same way a video game is addictive.

I notice someone asserting you must already be crazy to think marijuana is addictive. That good and normal people never have problems with it.

I swear, this line has been taken in regards to every intoxicant ever discovered by man. Usually, it's a response to perceived insult against someone's favorite drug.

If you are using and aren't negatively affected, God bless. If you are using, are negatively affected, but convince yourself thoroughly otherwise---Then it will literally take God to show you otherwise.

"I promise my bong and I won't hurt you..."

That's a promise a lot of people make in one form or the other. I'll tell you what---Just get rid of your bong. You're not going to miss it.

this line has been taken in regards to every intoxicant ever discovered by man

In the case of marijuana, it's fairly accurate. The "addiction" is psychological.

Every person is unique, but I have never encountered an individual who has been addicted to marijuana in the same way you can be addicted to nicotine.

I'll tell you what---Just get rid of your bong. You're not going to miss it.

Because you should make ganja butter and not trash your lungs by smoking.

"Maijuana is addictive in the same way a videogame is addictive..."

A variation of: "It's inconsequential because it's all in their heads".

Your head is where you live.

"The addiction is psychological..."

Therefore unreal. What an amazing bias and filter you have on life.

I also note someone stating consciousness is sometimes imaginary.

No. The road signs you read driving to work may be a figment but not your ride.

The chasm between us is absolutely huge.

Still not a healthy thing to do, but neither is eating these days.

#155 | Posted by pragmatist

There is recreational use of Herb. Then there is the medicinal use of Herb. Many a cancer patient suffering from nausea, many a person suffering from glaucoma, many a person with other assorted afflictions will tell you that doing Herb is a healthy thing to do compared to how they would be otherwise. Any drug, I repeat, any drug has its side effects, some of which can almost be as debilitating as the disease being treated.

Smoking anything is not quite a good thing to do. But the uninformed always equate doing Herb with a Big Fatty hanging from the lips. There are more efficient and less damaging methods to buzz up. Personally, I believe rolling is wasteful and can be dangerous (as evidenced by the back seat I accidentally set on fire in my Rambler back in my college days when a gust of wind through the window blew some hot roach into the back, where it smoldered unseen for a while.)

"I doubt you have met anyone who said pot smoking is addictive..."

I've met scads of them. A number have sought professional help, and many enter Twelve Step programs.

#157 | Posted by Zed

I guarantee you that these people who are so-called Herb addicts already have issues and would be all FUBAR'd regardless of whether they'd been Herbing or not. Take away their Herb and they will not become physically ill, DTs, sweats, shakes, etc., unless they induce it themselves through the classic psychosomatic reaction, which is yet another indicator there there are deeper issues that have not been dealt with.

Then it will literally take God to show you otherwise.

#159 | Posted by Zed

The history of drug use has always been greatly involved with being able to commune with God by assuming a drug-induced altered state.

Btw, the Sublime song quoted above was not penned by anyone in that group. It's a cover. : ) Their version definitely rawks through the night better though.

"And all four of them habitually smoked marijuana cigarettes! REEFER!"

Oh, and I don't expect to see legalization or decriminalization any time soon. Can you imagine this Congress taking on such a hot potato? Can you imagine the rightwing reaction? (Yes, I know, there are liberals who also are against the idea. But consider what would be aimed at President Obama.)

I don't expect to see legalization or decriminalization any time soon.

#169 | Posted by pragmatist

I wonder... The current economic pressures may drive full legalization soon.

- Much "lost" tax revenue can be gained.

- Less pressure on the law enforcement by removing the necessity to go after what are after all petty, very petty, criminals, this realizing significant savings at all levels of the Justice system.

- "Legitimate" job creation.

- Scads of new business opportunity.

And this is just the legalization of Herb alone. Because Herb is really what? Hemp. Need I go into the rather significant aspect of hemp?

Of course, the ElCid's of America are convinced that when that happens, America will be covered in a cloud of sweet, sticky Herb smoke. Well, if that really were to occur, maybe we all could actually get along. Herb certainly does not make one aggressive or violent.

Zot, I agree with all your points. But I just can't see this Congress (any Congress I've been aware of) making this happen.

And just think about the backlash and anger. "That filth Hussein is a drug pusher! He's destroying America! Now we'll all be too stoned to fight the terrorists on the streets of Baghdad before we have to fight them on the streets of New York!" Okay, that last one's a stretch.

That John Phillips forced himself on his daughter his horrible.

That Mackenzie Phillips is going to take that trauma out of the privacy of a therapist's office to sell books and get another fifteen minutes of fame is also horrible.

Of course marijuana isn't physically addictive. That's not what the addicts are complaining about. It's a different sort of monkey, but it's one their backs nonetheless.

#157 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-24 08:36 AM | Reply | Flag

They have problems other than marijuana. Alcohol, pills, truly addictive drugs. I must have missed your link to that site that treats marijuana addiction only. You lose the point anyway when you have admitted in your post that marijuana isn't physically addictive. What "different sort of monkey" are you talking about? Do they have "different sort of monkey" clinics that I haven't heard about? Link?

Now we'll all be too stoned to fight the terrorists on the streets of Baghdad before we have to fight them on the streets of New York!" Okay, that last one's a stretch.

#171 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-09-24 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

There are plenty of terrorists in New York to fight. They just happen to be Americans. Street gangs--muggers--thieves--
mafia--yakuza--and more. Why do we have to take out foreign terrorists when the hunting is already so rich.

Hanging a fed in a national forest seems like a terrorist action to me.

As a father, the disgust that I now have for John Phillips is almost indescribable..

I also don't understand the concept of her taking this public..

We're living in strange world..

Dang,

And I would have hit it back in the day....

Of course, the ElCid's of America are convinced that when that happens, America will be covered in a cloud of sweet, sticky Herb smoke. Well, if that really were to occur, maybe we all could actually get along. Herb certainly does not make one aggressive or violent.

#170 | Posted by ZOT

No, just stupid. Its called Dope for a reason. Smoking anything is bad for you. Start with that. As to the comparisons with alcohol above - I would also add to the comparisons that a normal person could enjoy one drink without becoming impared or have their state of mind altered (not everyone but most). Can this be said of just one joint? Or one pill? Or one line of coke? etc...

People also drink non-alcoholic beer. Would you light up a joint if you knew you would not get high? Some people would drink some alcohol just for the taste (virgin drinks come to mind as proof - most cant taste the difference with the alcohol so they choose to drink it without when they do not want to get drunk). Would you smoke a joint for the taste?

Their are similarities between the two users, but nobody smokes a joint on a hot day to quench their thirst like some drink a cold beer. Drinking alcohol does not always result in a drunk. Doing drugs always results in a dope.

For the record - I do not drink.

" Would you smoke a joint for the taste?"

Well I have some really delicious Grapeape. Very fruity and sweeter than wine. Strong indica. Want some?

#178 | Posted by nullifidian

Dont drink, dont smoke. I thought Grape Ape was a cartoon character?

"I thought Grape Ape was a cartoon character?"

I wouldn't know. I don't watch cartoons. All the purps, with names like Grape Ape, Purple Erkel, Grand Daddy Purple, etc., have a grape juice kind of flavor and purplish appearance. Good stuff, man.

"...Can this be said of just one joint? Or one pill? Or one line of coke? etc..."

Not a bad question. Except that one joint is not equal to one beer. One bonghit, maybe. That, and reefer, pills, and coke are quantitatively and qualitatively very different. I'm willing to bet that most who are interested in decriminalization of marijuana are not interested in changing heroin and cocaine laws. Very different.

"People also drink non-alcoholic beer. Would you light up a joint if you knew you would not get high? Some people would drink some alcohol just for the taste (virgin drinks come to mind as proof - most cant taste the difference with the alcohol so they choose to drink it without when they do not want to get drunk). Would you smoke a joint for the taste?"

Some people love the taste of pot, just as some love the taste of a good Cuban cigar.

"Their are similarities between the two users, but nobody smokes a joint on a hot day to quench their thirst like some drink a cold beer. Drinking alcohol does not always result in a drunk."

No, but some people do a bonghit or two to relax just as some people drink a beer or two slowly to relax. And even many anti-pot people I know admit that alcohol is much more dangerous, makes people belligerent, violent, etc.

"Doing drugs always results in a dope."

Really? That was almost a clever shot. But you obviously don't know many marijuana users.

"I don't watch cartoons. "

Now, _that_ was funny.

You know, we argue it back and forth, but i really think the only reason marijuana hasn't been legalized is it's lack of lobbying power. Hell, when a drug company made marinol, it suddenly became ok, but some local who hasn't hurt a fly unfortunately lacks the political clout (money) get that through.

As for taxing it, that probably will drive it to full legalization. A couple months ago some place in cali started taxing it, and you know everyone is going to want to get their hands on their share of the pie eventually. Government can't keep it's hands off of taxable commodities. Probably the only reason they drag their feet is it's hard to tax something you can grow for yourself and never report any profit.

Finally, yes, you are all right. Smoking is probably the least responsible means of ingestion of herb. Some good homemade butter or even a vaporiser would be better, but some herb just tastes and smells too good.

I wonder if Chelsea Clinton will ever write a book???

#140 | Posted by AntiCadillac

Let's just hope the Obama kids don't write a similar book either.

For the record - I do not drink.

#177 | POSTED BY ELCIDCE90 AT 2009-09-24 12:20 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Ha! Your ignorance of the subject is apparent in your discussion. There is no need to explicitly announce that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

If I understand the gist of some of the arguments above, marijuana is fine but some people that smoke it are crazy, as evidenced by the fact they complain about marijuana?

What a hoot.

#177 | POSTED BY ELCIDCE90 AT 2009-09-24 12:20 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

If MJ makes you stupid, then how is it that all of the enthusiastic smokers on this thread are able to use logic to back up their arguments and you aren't able to mount any credible defense whatsoever? Any honest, impartial observer who is familiar with the principles of debate would look at this thread and say that you demonstrate no command of logic, and no ability to think critically.

Drugs always have you. You never have the drugs. Marijuana may be a rhesus monkey compared to the gorilla of heroin, but they're both in the ape family.

Current drug laws need to he reformed. Many, many druggies never will be.

" marijuana is fine but some people that smoke it are crazy"

Yes, it is true. Marijuana is fine (in fact, a great medicine), and some people that smoke it are crazy.

"Use logic to back up their arguments..."

What arguments? That their favorite drugs are fine? Do you think this is EVER a challenge for any committed user, no matter the chemical in question?

Drugs are closer than family members to committed users. Of course they marshall whatever they can to defend them. Every once in a while the argument is clever, which just makes the entire thing so much sadder.

"And some people who smoke it are crazy..."

Because they complain about marijuana. I'm sure I didn't mistake the argument. Again, what a hoot.

By the way---Yes, by observation, marijuana makes you more stupid.

"Drugs always have you. You never have the drugs. Marijuana may be a rhesus monkey compared to the gorilla of heroin, but they're both in the ape family."

Thanks, Pastor Zed.

"Yes, by observation, marijuana makes you more stupid."

My observation is that marijuana makes marijuana opponents stupid.

"Thanks Pastor Zed..."

Just put that five-spot in the plate ands pass it on.

#186 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2009-09-24 06:48 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Marijuana is not physically addictive, which is the traditionally accepted definition of the term 'addictive'. People who are psychologically addicted to mary jane are at risk of becoming psychologically addicted to any other immediately rewarding activity. People who are psychologically addicted to mary jane have poor impulse control. Poor impulse control is a cause, not a symptom, of mary jane 'addiction'. Do you refuse to use clear language when you discuss this topic on purpose, or are you just not very articulate when you write?

"Marijauna makes marijuana opponents stupid..."

There is indeed much hysteria. There is an equal amount of pollyanna on the other side. "Harmless" is relative, very much so. Ignoring that simple fact proves my points.

"Traditionally accepted definition of addictive..."

Is an intellectual dodge.

"People who are addicted to maryjane have poor impulse control..."

Unlike we superior beings. Ye gods. Hoot, hoot, hoot. That's right, Boss---They be inferior.

"Poor impulse control" doesn't make you sit around your trailer watching Bugs Bunny cartoons for ten years.

"Do you refuse to use clear language....?"

Just another one of my devious plots. If you don't watch out, someone might trick you into being sober.

"Is an intellectual dodge."

No. It's a definition of a term and a clear distinction between two very different conditions.

It's just a figleaf used to distract someone from human tragedy. Look to what people are doing, not your dictionary.

"proves my points."

Acknowledging that the opposition--the consciousness control police--engages in hysterics proves your point. Uh huh.

#202 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2009-09-24 07:09 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Using clear language, logic, and information based on observation is a distraction?

human tragedy

#202 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-24 07:09 PM | Reply | Flag: DRAMA QUEEN

"human tragedy"

Nothing tragic about smoking purple erkel, man. A damn good use of time if you ask me.

"Unlike we superior beings. Ye gods. Hoot, hoot, hoot. That's right, Boss---They be inferior."

#198 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2009-09-24 07:03 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

This means nothing to me. I have claimed that Nullifidian and his fellows on this thread are superior in intellect and argumentative ability to ElCid and you, Zed. You're free to believe that someone with poor impulse control is wholly inferior to someone who does not. I don't share in that assertion.

Who the fuck cares, Jono. Now pass the fucking pretzels.

"I have claimed that Nullifidian and his fellows on this thread are superior in intellect and argumentative ability"

Very perceptive.

Very perceptive.

#209 | Posted by nullifidian

For an eight year old....

For an eight year old....

#210 | Posted by wisgod

Shut up, cheese breath.

Shut up, cheese breath.

#211 | Posted by nullifidian

Just busting balls, hop-head.

"I don't share in that assertion...."

Then try not to, er, assert it.

The idea people who get into trouble with chemicals must be somehow less than rest of (whatever) is an old, old one.

They HAVE to be less, don't you see? Otherwise we might have to question our own behavior.

What's worse than "Rush Rambo"?

Sex With Your Parents

Never had it happen to me but I know some folks where it's really messed them up, even as adults. How a parent or adult can do that to a child is beyond me.

#213 | Posted by OohRah

I'd like to believe there is a special place in hell for these people. But hell, I just smoked 12" of hemp rope.

That is one mixed up woman.

#215 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2009-09-24 07:49 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

I guess if tossing around your wilted cliches and monkey references is a good enough explanation for you of why people have problems with drugs and alcohol I'll leave you to it. Don't expect to solve anyone's problems with that bullshit. For most people, it helps to understand what it is they're trying to overcome.

"You see, it's like a monkey. Or a baboon. And it just keeps grabbing on to your back all viscious-like. And you can't get it off. But you got to pray to Jesus. Pray to Jesus and he'll float down from heaven and knock that goddamn macaque back down to the depths of the Netherworld with a rolled up newspaper. Woogety Boogety!"

-Zed's advice for recovering drug abusers

"Don't expect to solve anyone's problems with your bullshit...."

Again, what a hoot. And please don't expect to solve anyone's problems with yours, boyo. Of the two of us, it's YOU that's arguing for being a stoner.

"For most people it helps to understand what they're trying to overcome...."

Who could possibly argue against that? Problem is, drugs become just one more thing to overcome. Then, because drugs are drugs, it becomes THE thing to overcome.

You want to redeem yourself, try to get someone sober. No one needs any help to get into your drug of abuse. That takes no talent at all.

That's right, JONO---Pray to Jesus. Because if it's a choice between you and Him, between the two of you He's not rolling the doobie.

Militant stoners---It's the end of the world as we know it.

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand."
Karl Marx

"Religion is the opium of the masses."
Karl Marx

"try to get someone sober"
Unfortunately with Zed that's impossible.

"Who else would do that pock-faced mutt?

#11 | POSTED BY WISGOD AT 2009-09-23 12:24 PM | REPLY | FLAG:
"

hey Wisgod. I heard your mother gave lousy head when she was 12 too

#222 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2009-09-24 08:08 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Jesus was a great teacher. I believe that. He dug wine. That much is clear. I bet he would smoke the herb with me. In moderation, course.

There is no such thing as lousy head.

"In moderation of course...."

Jesus was never one to sweat the small stuff. He'd forgive you your dope. He'd be a bit more severe with your advocacy of a hollow point of view.

hey Wisgod. I heard your mother gave lousy head when she was 12 too

#225 | Posted by bph320

You did? I heard your slut of a Mother is a pro in the neighborhood and always wears a bib. I'll bet her teeth are on the nightstand right now and she's out getting "supper".

"Jesus was a great teacher. I believe that. He dug wine. That much is clear. I bet he would smoke the herb with me. In moderation, course."

He probably was a shroomer as well.

"a hollow point of view"

Jesus is a myth for idiots.

#228 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2009-09-24 08:15 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Stop pretending to speak for some kind of supreme being, Zed. I don't advocate the use of drugs or alcohol. I just refute the suggestion that Jesus and I would owe a debt to society (fine, jail time, community service, probation) if we were to sit down and pass around some homegrown.

See the difference, Zed? I say 'I bet' as if I don't really know what Jesus would have done. You see, he may or may not have lived a couple of thousand years ago. You, however, act like he spoke to you on the telephone yesterday and explained his political stance on marijuana.

the differences are subtle.

conservatives: drugs stay illegal and immoral. yet they take them guilt-free as part of their regimen of general gluttony, lie about it incessantly, and condemn all others for the same.

liberals: drugs go legal, yet remain immoral and cause considerable guilt. they take them with their regimen of general gluttony, admit to it openly, and tax all sales.

libertarians: drugs go legal, and morality is an entirely different conversation. they take them as part of their regimen of general gluttony, lie about it incessantly, and no sales tax is levied.

"act like he spoke to you on the telephone"

Zed doesn't need a telephone for messages from his imaginary friends.

"You act like He spoke to you on the telephone yesterday..."

I just have an affirmative style. People react to it. ZAT's goat was gotten because of it eons ago.

But beyond that, if Jesus wants to talk to you He will. Einstein, however, and as just one example, is dead.

No, no. You misquoted me. I wrote 'he'. Not 'He'.

I didn't misquote you, I corrected you.

Then it wouldn't belong in quotes then, would it?

I'd do the same thing if someone referred to you as mr. jono.

Dear Jesus: What is your political stance on marijuana?

"But beyond that, if Jesus wants to talk to you He will."

I won't hold my breath.

""Poor impulse control" doesn't make you sit around your trailer watching Bugs Bunny cartoons for ten years."

Neither does using marijuana. That's called lack of fucking ambition, and plenty of "squares" exhibit that behavior.

And some marijuana smokers I know are fully productive members of society, in job, in community engagement, and in family life. Generalizing gets you nowhere. I could make some pretty horrifying comments about Christians based on a very limited sample, too.

Again, comments like this show bias or ignorance or both.

Jesus? Is that you? What's that? You'll meet me tomorrow at my house? Hmm? Have a big fat bowl and some pizza ready? Yes sir! I'm looking forward to meeting you. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. What? Zed can't come? Alright...

I won't hold my breath.

#244 | Posted by nullifidian

No doubt. The smoke has to come out sooner or later.

#246 | Posted by JonO at 2009-09-24 08:42 PM | Reply | Flag: ff

"No doubt. The smoke has to come out sooner or later."

And it's a shame, given the premium quality bud that I have. :)

"And some marijuana smokers I know are fully productive members of society..."

Yes. And with proper planning you can shoot horse for years and still maitain a highly professional position and six-figure income.

"with proper planning you can shoot horse for years"

#250 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-24 08:51 PM | Reply | Flag: Voice of experience.

Drugs are bad things. I'm fascinated by the apparently sincere effort to make them into something they are not. If they all vanished from the ace of the earth tomorrow we have a better place.

Really, why the plague of the 21st Century has so many defenders is interesting.

"Drugs are bad things."

Keep digging.

#252 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2009-09-24 08:53 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Zed - I'm very sorry that Jesus doesn't want to smoke bud with you. Don't go all 'sour grapes' on us. Maybe he's just testing you. If Jesus offered to smoke with you, would you accept that moderate marijuana use is ok then? I'll put in a good word while we're eating pizza tomorrow. No promises. You know how stubborn he can be.

ZAT offers opinions about other people's opinions. I've never really learned how he thinks, given he seems to have no opinions of his own.

"And some marijuana smokers I know are fully productive members of society..."

Jefferson, Washington, Sagan ...

JONO, you're a kid. You have a kid's opinion on this subject. If you don't get bitten by that black dog you like to pet, you might stay a kid for quite some time.

"Drugs are bad things."

Well, they are probably responsible for many of the "mystical" experiences that led to the founding of various religions.

We speak two different languages, Zed. What black dog are you referring to?

Really, why the plague of the 21st Century has so many defenders is interesting.

#253 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-24 08:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Religion is the plague of the 21st century. You are an infectious carrier.

#259 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2009-09-24 09:01 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

An excellent point.

Yes. And with proper planning you can shoot horse for years and still maitain a highly professional position and six-figure income.

#250 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-24 08:51 PM | Reply | Flag

And that hurts you how?

"Founding of various religions...."

Aside from shamanism, which?

"And that hurts you how..."

Gee, BOB---You're right---I guess that doesn't hurt me. And if I never know he beats his kid with a car antenna, I'm also not hurt.

#264 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2009-09-24 09:03 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

All the ones where people record sightings of shiny shit appearing in the sky, on the side of roads, and in their bedrooms.

Just your biases speaking, JONO---You can no more answer the question I posed than good old Whatshisname.

And that hurts you how?

#263 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

You start quoting The Onion as fact and babble about the little green pot heads smoking on the moon.

"Yes. And with proper planning you can shoot horse for years and still maitain a highly professional position and six-figure income."

I wonder where Jon is to point out your straw-man argument.

Zed, my brother, I said _marijuana_. Just in case you forgot how to read.

Aside from shamanism, which?

Who knows? Maybe christianity.

#267 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2009-09-24 09:09 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Neither can you, Zed. The problem is, you aren't aware of it.

PRAGMATIST---If someone smokes dope and doesn't get hurt, then praise God.

I'd say the same thing if someone drenched himself in gasoline and his match failed to ignite.

"Gee, BOB---You're right---I guess that doesn't hurt me. And if I never know he beats his kid with a car antenna, I'm also not hurt."

Wow, Zed is truly going off-topic now.

Please show a connection between _marijuana use_ and child abuse, other than the one story we see in this thread about irresponsible asshole parents going off into the other room to smoke and leaving their kid behind. That's certainly neglect, but I know a whole ton of pot smokers, and not one of them does that. Not one. So my anecdotes trump that anecdote.

So Zed, are you purely a troll, having way too much fun with all the DR smokers (or smoker sympathizers)?

JONO---If you can name a religion founded on use of drugs other than shamanism I'd like to hear about it. Do you know one?

"Please show a correlation between marijuana use..."

Let's frame the reply this way, in a question to you---All things being even, is it better to be sober than intoxicated?

#274 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2009-09-24 09:14 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Well, I honestly haven't done much research on the topic. Founded on drug use? Too simplistic to answer. However, many religions, historical and current, incorporate mind altering substances as central elements to their ceremonies. Catholicism. Some sects of Judaism. Rastafarianism. Peyote indians, I believe. I'm sure there are others. Jesus, apparently, magically mass produced wine and distributed it to his followers. We already covered that.

#275= Game, set and match in one post.

Ah. There are some historians and anthropologists who believe Viking berserkers may have used mind altering substances to allow the spirits of animals or gods to inhabit their bodies and drive them into a bloodrage as they entered combat.

#275 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2009-09-24 09:16 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Sober. Do I owe society a debt (fine, probation, etc) if I choose to be sober only some of the time?

Lots of warriors use drugs.

Zulu.

Viet Cong.

1st Infantry.

Mind altering substances are no part of Christianity, JONO. Focusing on that wee bit of wine someone sips on Sunday shows how you are grasping. In my church, we use grape juice, anyway.

I'll give you the Rasta's, but they elude classification. Peyotism is shamanistic. Jesus turned water into wine to show His mastery of the natural world, not to make it safe for you to roll a number.

The Zulus weren't good shock troops because they were stoned.

That whole '60s scene with free sex and lots of drug abuse is full of horror stories for the kids of these free spirits.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2009-09-23 12:15 PM

Hippies and liberals.

#15 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Yeah and they are not "free spirits"--they are assholes.

Most of them are in positions of running the country now--either local state or federal..

"Mind altering substances are no part of Christianity, JONO."

I'm not so sure. I certainly can't expect you to engage in rigorous scholarship on the topic, but I think we would both be surprised to look at the historical record and find out. How many monks and priests have sat about and thought up crazy ideas (possibly influential theological innovations which are still a part of modern Christianity) while using caffeine or booze or worse(!) to bend their minds a bit? I don't know the answer. But, again, you don't seem to either.

The spread of and metamorphosis of Christianity is closely related to and influenced by cargoes like tea, coffee, tobacco, opium, hashish, etc. The historical record clearly demonstrates that much.

Many a monk has been a drunk, JONO. None of them were Jesus.

Yeah and they are not "free spirits"--they are assholes.

Most of them are in positions of running the country now--either local state or federal..

#283 | Posted by MURPHY

Hey Murphy, there are some kids smoking pot on your lawn!

What's that Jesus? Zed knows dick about history? I tend to agree...

"The historical record demonstrates that much..."

Nah.

Hey Murphy, there are some kids smoking pot on your lawn!

#288 | Posted by nullifidian

What can she do about it? Call the cops on your spawn?

Jesus turned water into wine to show His mastery of the natural world ...

Any good magician can do that.

"Any good magician can do that..."

Was Christ a magician, RAY?

#290 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2009-09-24 09:33 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Nice argument.

"Nice argument..."

Well, I am pithy. Not to say because someone pithed on me.

Christ Angel (tm)

"Peyotism is shamanistic."

Meaning what? It is somehow less valid than your mumbojumbo? Woogety Boogety!

"Woogety Boogety..."

I thought we didn't speak the same language?

#295 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-24 09:39 PM | Reply | Flag: Can take about an hour on the Tower of Power if he gets his Golden Shower.

"Golden shower..."

Siberian shamans would ingest amanita and then, because of the drug's peculiar nature, save their piss and drink it in order to ingest amanita again.

"Siberian shamans would ingest amanita and then, because of the drug's peculiar nature, save their piss and drink it in order to ingest amanita again."

And your point is? That this is weirder than men in silken robes and pointy hats claiming to speak for invisible deities?

#19 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-09-23 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag: Thinks a father shooting up his 10 year old is a Free Spirit.

#20 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-09-23 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now there's a stretch if ever I saw one.

"Let's frame the reply this way, in a question to you---All things being even, is it better to be sober than intoxicated?"

Define better. I enjoy both. In vino veritas and all that. All things in moderation, including moderation.

If you are asking, "What's better--to be drunk every day or to be sober every day?" I probably have a different answer.

But again, you went off-topic. Please show the connection to child abuse that you implied in the comment that led me to make my request to begin with. Don't assert something by implication, then walk away. Are you suggesting that only intoxicated people abuse their children? I fail to understand your reason for asking this question in response to my request.

"Most of them are in positions of running the country now--either local state or federal.."

Ha! If they're state or local, are they really in positions of running the _country_?

They should make her sit on the "group W" bench with all the other father rapers.

I'd say intoxicated people are more likely to abuse their kids than sober ones. In fact, that's more than just my opinion.

Intoxicated people are more likely to do a whole slew of negative things. Marijuana intoxicates. There's no basis I know for asserting this drug makes you more controlled. Or more anything in any positive sense of the word.

Take that back: It might help you appreciate a Twinky more. I've exhausted known virtues at this point, I think.

Don't get me wrong. Smoke marijuana to help you with chemotherapy, I won't stand in your way. I do think whoring medical issues so you can just enjoy some reefer is low-classed, however.

Intoxicated people are more likely to do a whole slew of negative things

I hears he has a temper,
He'll beat you every night,
but only when he's sober,
So you're alright.

Fiddler on the Roof

"Fiddler on the Roof"

My FAVORITE musical!

I know every word of it!!

Your quote is from Matchmaker Matchmaker song

Scene...not song

"I'd say intoxicated people are more likely to abuse their kids than sober ones. In fact, that's more than just my opinion."

You keep avoiding clarity, pal. I think you must be high.

Many child abusers also abuse drugs. Is it the drugs' fault? Okay, you didn't quite say that. Many sober people abuse children. More in the first camp? Probably. But the _type_ of intoxication is entirely different. But you just can't see that, or accept it. "Intoxicate" is a broad umbrella term. Kind of like "religious." Think harder. Think more. Do some research. Talk to some actual users of marijuana who aren't also serious users of other drugs and of alcohol.

And give me some proof that marijuana use, on its own, is at all connected to child abuse. None of the child abusers I have known have been marijuana users. Which also proves nothing. Remember, my anecdotes trump your wild suppositions and poor logical leaps. Saying doesn't make it so.

That said, this I completely agree with: "I do think whoring medical issues so you can just enjoy some reefer is low-classed, however." But I'm afraid that your supposition might be that anyone who insists on the value of medical marijuana for him- or herself is engaging in said whoring. Which strikes me as bullshit. I hope that wasn't what you meant.

"None of the child abusers I have known have been marijuana users...."

But I have known some. How's that affect that marijuana halo?

I think one of us doesn't get out much. I haven't learned to associate marijuana with any (emphasize any) high qualities, quite the opposite.

If I saw some good from it I would say that. But I can't really think one one damned thing. It's something you do when you can't think of something to do.

There are people that use substances like marijuana in what I'd describe as small amounts, and of course the impact on them is reduced.

They luck out. It isn't them that limits the smoking, it's grace of the genetic and SES draw that helps them keep it all down to one joint per night as opposed to a QP per day.

I would say the "grace of God" that keeps them from trouble, and that's also quite correct. You are just a hair away from them at any moment. You should give thanks you are in a position to remain arrogant concerning drugs of abuse.

The word "arrogance" was chosen respectfully but deliberately. Kids play in the street with traffic. Adults do what they can to keep them from getting run over.

I'm reminded of the last paragraphs in "A Scanner Darkly". Phil was also talking about you.

"I think one of us doesn't get out much. I haven't learned to associate marijuana with any (emphasize any) high qualities, quite the opposite.

If I saw some good from it I would say that. But I can't really think one one damned thing. It's something you do when you can't think of something to do."

You obviously don't get out much. Marijuana is not only a great medicine, but a great hobby! Furthermore, cannabis smokers are twice as cool as non-cannabis smokers as revealed in a recent scientific study.

"Fiddler on the Roof"

My FAVORITE musical!

I know every word of it!!

Your quote is from Matchmaker Matchmaker song

#309 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-09-24 11:30 PM | Reply | Flag: OFF TOPIC AS USUAL

"You should give thanks you are in a position to remain arrogant concerning drugs of abuse."

Here, let me redirect that at you. It must be great to know the Truth of All Things. (And btw, screw off. You have _no idea_, none, what experience I may have had or been close to you regarding use or abuse of drugs or of children. Your arrogance is beyond belief.)

Furthermore, you _still_ have not addressed my direct question, which shows me that you really have no leg to stand on. I shall not engage any further, unless you decide to actually have a conversation. Have a great day!

And Gotchamedia, why are you picking on Lisa? She was _responding_ to someone else's off-topic retort. And if you think we stay on topic here, you don't know DR, and you haven't been reading this thread--there's all kinds of shit on here that has nothing to do with John's alleged abuse of McKenzie (sp?).

"Marijuana is not only great medicine, it's a great hobby..."

1) I hope you're not sick.

2) Marijuana has you for a hobby.

Sorry to have said bad things about your great and true friend, PRAGMATIST---Marijuana. No one's interfered with your freedom of movement here. You're free to pursue the relationship to marriage and beyond.

Zed,

I generally agree with your point of view. And in fact, I took two years off of the purple pony to experience sober life. Guess what, it sucked! Now the real question would be whether or not life would have been better if I didn't spend a decade in the tokey pokey before quitting. I guess I'll never know, but once you hack, you can't go back.

If MJ makes you stupid, then how is it that all of the enthusiastic smokers on this thread are able to use logic to back up their arguments and you aren't able to mount any credible defense whatsoever? Any honest, impartial observer who is familiar with the principles of debate would look at this thread and say that you demonstrate no command of logic, and no ability to think critically.

#187 | Posted by JonO at 2009-09-24 06:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, it is logical to argue for the legalization of substances that cause harm to humans? Grow up joNO.

Defend your addiction to your heart's desire. You and others will claim religions and founding fathers used it as a defense, yet will criticize the same for slavery or other social injustices. Where is the logic in that?

You obviously are unable to cope with reality so you find a substitute - you can't argue your way logically away from that without demonizing your own behavior. So, go back to the bong or whatever you do and live in a reality beyond the pale. People with true gifts and insights don't need a crutch to enable their creativity. Only the weak do.

"You obviously are unable to cope with reality so you find a substitute"

Reality is for people who can't handle drugs.

Reality is for people who can't handle drugs.

#325 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-09-25 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag: Will use any circular argument to rationalize my behavior.

#326 | POSTED BY ELCIDCE90 AT 2009-09-25 02:17 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

No, no, ElCid. Nullifidian was posting a *joke*. There are two acceptable things to post here: an argument, or a joke. You are unable to construct either or even to distinguish between the two.

How does post #324 support your position, logically? It certainly isn't intentionally funny on your part, though it did make me laugh.

"You and others will claim religions and founding fathers used it as a defense, yet will criticize the same for slavery or other social injustices. Where is the logic in that?"

Where is the logic in this statement? That is what you should be asking. Are you saying I have to agree with *all* of the opinions and actions of the founding fathers or none of them. Here's a piece of news for you: the founding fathers often disagreed *with each other*. What do I do then?

#328 | Posted by JonO at 2009-09-25 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

You claim them as a credible source on one hand, and discredit them on the other to suit your belief.

In any case, all arguments are not based on logic -liberals prefer emotion and feelings rather than logic when discussing issues such as minimum wage and health care.

Again, where is the logic in arguing for the legalization of substances which harm humans? If you can't answer the question, take your logic ball back home and cry to mommy. Quit making the topic about my debating skills and address the topic of injesting harmful substances in ones body.

"You claim them as a credible source on one hand, and discredit them on the other to suit your belief. "

Incorrect. People who are able to think critically often point to instances in which their arguments have been successfully supported before. That does not indicate that those who successfully supported opinions I share are automatically in agreement with me on any other topics. In this instance, founding fathers supported and successfully argued in favor of personal liberties, as do I.

Now, the logic for the legalization of 'substances which harm humans' is manyfold and has been stated repeatedly on this thread without any logical refutation from you or Zed, whatsoever. Try to keep up as I argue in favor of MJ legalization:

1) Who the fuck are you, or anyone else, to judge what is sufficiently harmful for me to injest or not? *Doctors* don't know the full extent of the effects of drugs they prescribe. Yet, they do so because they believe, based on previously gathered evidence and study, that the benefits outweigh the costs. In the case of recreational mary jane, I, as a responsible adult, have made the decision that the benefits outweigh the costs, for me, which is my right as a free man. You don't have to smoke up if you don't want to, and you don't get to decide whether I get to or not because it does not affect you as long as I'm in my house. *Flintstone Vitamins* are more harmful than MJ. Ask your doctor. I don't speak for you; you definitely don't speak for me.

2) We know, as history and current events have shown, that violating personal liberties through attempting to ban certain recreational substances in an unnecessary way leads to the formation of black markets in which the context for competition is violence. Violent prison gangs. Violent transport and distribution gangs. People die. MJ is illegal, yet, the black market persists because people are willing to exercise their personal liberties and criminal gangs are willing to satisfy and profit from that legitimate demand in an illegitimate way. Other than your assertion that 'it makes people dumb', all other societal ills for which some (you?) claim MJ is to blame are actually caused by the criminal gangs who take over production and transportation. Legalize it, and production and distribution are taken over by legitimate, nonviolent, taxable organizations. We're left with 'it makes people dumb'.

3) 'It makes people dumb' or 'It's harmful' refutation. There are lots of things that exist in this world which are harmful to humans. Should we make fried chicken illegal? If one guy ate fried chicken every day, three meals a day, and another guy ate copious amounts of bud every day (no lung cancer because he's eating it, douche), which one do you think would die first? ElCid, government should be in the business of keeping *poison* out of the hands of ignorant individuals. MJ can't kill me, no matter how much I eat or smoke. No matter how much I smoke, I can still work smarter and faster, and play better chess, than 95% of people out there. I use chess as an example because it involves many mental activities traditionally associated with 'intelligence'. Therefore, MJ is misclassified as a class A dangerous substance. Therefore, the government, and you by extension, are in the habit of violating my personal liberties, my right to do as I please as long as it does not harm others. I don't appreciate it. I don't owe anyone a fine, community service, nor should I be separated from society if I enjoy smoking MJ.

I forgot the 'gateway' argument, ElCid. Let's put that one to rest as well. On NIDA's website, they acknowledge that they consider MJ a 'gateway' drug solely because MJ is distributed by criminals who are often involved with distribution of more harmful substances. In turn, the 'dealer' is able to provide access to more harmful substances in order to make a higher profit from his/her customers. NIDA also acknowledges that there is *NO* evidence that marijuana serves as a 'gateway' drug in terms of the way it affects the human body. In short, NIDA provides evidence that MJ should be legal on their own website. As has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread, if I wasn't forced by morons with voter registration cards, like you, to deal with criminals to acquire my MJ, then I would have no earthly idea where to acquire any other illicit drugs. Therefore, MJ would no longer be a 'gateway' drug, would it? Is booze a gateway drug? Are cigarettes? By NIDA's standards, they would be if they were illegal. Shouldn't we ban them, then?

"arguing for the legalization of substances which harm humans? "

Like what? Alcohol? Tobacco? Harmful side effects from prescription drugs? Caffeine? Television?

"And NULL, I would be all for making smoking illegal as well as Alcohol -"

That makes sense. You aren't concerned about people's health at all. You're interested in control, control freak.

"Television is a substance?"

An extremely addicting one, it appears.

Interesting that my views have been so distorted. Some of you guys are so used to having enemies you make them out of tissue paper.

I'm all for the reform of drug laws, including some decriminalization. I don't see the merit in ruining someone's life legally because he uses marijuana.

Having said that, I would never, NEVER recommend anyone use any of this stuff, including marijuana. It's a dead end. Romanticizing one's personal use won't change that.

Therefore, the government, and you by extension, are in the habit of violating my personal liberties, my right to do as I please as long as it does not harm others. I don't appreciate it. I don't owe anyone a fine, community service, nor should I be separated from society if I enjoy smoking MJ.

#330 | Posted by JonO at 2009-09-25 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

So your really an anarchist? Live by your own rules and the rule of society be damned? Logical?

"I, as a responsible adult..."

If you were that you wouldn't be smoking, or even indirectly encourage smoking, especially to those younger coming up behind you.

telvision has substance - defining it as one seems a bit of a stretch. It is certainly not injestible as a substance and is completely harmless if not plugged in. Well, assuming you don't drop it on someones head.

By the way, bragging that you are able to do so many more wonderful things than 95% of the general population while stoned just makes me wonder what the hell is the matter with you you want to kill off 5% of your natural abilities.

Keep petting that black dog, sonny. You've long ago persuaded yourself he doesn't have a mouth to bite.

"Live by your own rules and the rule of society be damned? "

The rules of society aren't static, sheepstain. And in any event, quite a few of them are, and should be, ignored.

The rules of society aren't static, sheepstain. And in any event, quite a few of them are, and should be, ignored.

#341 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-09-25 05:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

And you are the individual to determine which we obey and which we ignore? Currently, the law which we are discussing is a rule in society. He breaks it, so do others here. Maybe you should visit a sheep for some entertainment instead of arguing that you know which laws of society can and can't be broken because your so elite.

No matter how much I smoke, I can still work smarter and faster, and play better chess, than 95% of people out there. - joNO

Wow, never heard chest banging like that on a blog before. You know, I own my own software company called Microsoft. Did you know that jono?

"you want to kill off 5% of your natural abilities."

Well that's stupid. Drugs--plants--have been a source of artistic creation and inspiration for millenia. That's not killing off anything. Way before "Sgt. Pepper" there was art inspired by drugs/plants.

"And you are the individual to determine which we obey and which we ignore? "

No, that's up to each individual. You want to control my consciousness. You hate freedom. I guess that's why you're an rtard.

Little Bit was bragging he could whip 95% of the world with one arm tied behind his back, when stoned of course.

I just pointed out this is was not living up to his potential. If he can live with that, and he obviously can, you can too.

"You want to control my consciousness...."

Not at all. Just pointing out you don't really want to control your consciousness, either.

Really, I am fascinated---When you ingest LSD, as one example, what exactly do you think you are in control of?

"Not at all. Just pointing out you don't really want to control your consciousness, either. "

My barb wasn't addressed to you, but anyway, I certainly do want to control my consciousness. That's the whole point.

I would never, NEVER recommend anyone use any of this stuff, including marijuana.

Your recommendations tend to suck.

"When you ingest LSD, as one example, what exactly do you think you are in control of?"

The point of having cognitive liberty is being able to let go of the control, if you so choose. Otherwise you're not free.

"Logical?"

#337 | POSTED BY ELCIDCE90 AT 2009-09-25 05:48 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Please, stop using the word, ElCid. You don't know what it means. You're suggesting that anyone who has ever knowingly broken an unjust law is an anarchist. I'm certain that you don't believe that.

When you ingest LSD, as one example, what exactly do you think you are in control of?

That would depend on who you are and how much acid you ate.

"Not at all. Just pointing out you don't really want to control your consciousness, either. "

Zed - Have you ever tried MJ or LSD? BTW, I'm not necessarily convinced that LSD should be legal and freely available (I'm not convinced that it shouldn't be. I just don't know). But, I've tried it.

#354 | POSTED BY JONO AT 2009-09-25 06:33 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

I take that back. Illicit LSD tabs can contain shit like rat poison and who knows what else. Legalize that shit and sell it at Walgreens.

" I'm not necessarily convinced that LSD should be legal and freely available"

Why? Either you are free or you're not.

"I'm all for the reform of drug laws, including some decriminalization. I don't see the merit in ruining someone's life legally because he uses marijuana."

I'm so glad we agree on this topic, Zed. What say we both write our congress-people and ask them to stop the flow of funds to criminal gangs and cease shitting on individual rights with regards to mary jane?

That would depend on who you are and how much acid you ate.

Posted by ZombieHunter

as long as ur seeing utramarine all around ~ everything is ok!

#356 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2009-09-25 06:39 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

It's true. You're right. We're not actually free people. I guess I accept that to a certain extent (which is why I'm not an anarchist, ElCid). I suppose I believe the government should interfere *as little as possible* in the lives of the people. I'm not sure where that line should be drawn. To my knowledge, there's not a huge criminal enterprise revolving around LSD, so I'm not sure where I land on the issue. Legalizing it *would* make it safer. However, I'm not expert enough in its potential effects to say I think it is harmless enough for mass consumption. Either way, I think we agree LSD is *way* more dangerous than MJ, legal or not.

"I'm not expert enough in its potential effects to say I think it is harmless enough for mass consumption"

I don't think it[lsd] is harmless enough for mass consumption. But the test cannot be whether some schizophrenic or someone on anti-psychotics can handle it. By that logic you could ban kitchen knives.

Please, stop using the word, ElCid. You don't know what it means. jono

Definitions of logic on the Web:

the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference
reasoned and reasonable judgment; "it made a certain kind of logic"
the principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation; "economic logic requires it"; "by the logic of war"
the system of operations performed by a computer that underlies the machine's representation of logical operations
a system of reasoning

Reasoned and resonable judgment - again, who is using logic and who is not. How reasonable is your judgement when you argue for voluntarily inhibiting that which you claim I do not know the definition of?

I will give you your logical argument. jono believes drugs should be made legal. Elcid does not. Neither is going to be convinced to change their opionion based on the others "reasoning". The argument is therefore pointless. Goodnight jono.