As many of the laws in North America have generally been changing in favor of lesser penalties for marijuana-related offenses, Oklahoma decided to send a message from the other side of the argument.
On April 20, the Oklahoma state senate passed a bill (voted 44 to 2) to increase the punishment for creating hashish to a $50,000 fine and 2 years to life in prison.
What does everyone think about this decision? I, as an OK resident, am just shocked and completely disgusted. I know there are quite a few smokers on TL, just wondering how the community sees this new bill.
The Oklahoma Senate Wednesday passed a bill that would mandate a sentence of up to life in prison for making hashish out of marijuana. The House has already approved the measure, but it must go back to the lower chamber for a final vote.
The measure sailed through the Senate with little debate, passing on a vote of 44-2. The House also approved the measure by a large margin, passing it on a vote of 75-18.
The bill, House Bill 1798, creates a new felony of converting marijuana into hash. A first conviction could garner a $50,000 fine and prison sentence of two years to life. Second or subsequent convictions would net doubled penalties.
Oklahoma legislative analysts said the bill would cost the state $56 per day, or more than $20,000 a year, for each day someone is imprisoned. At that rate, if Oklahoma imprisoned five hash makers for 10 years each, the bill to taxpayers would be one million dollars.
The bill was the brainchild of the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (OBNDD), which says on its web site that its mission is "to serve the citizens of Oklahoma in the quest for a drug-free state."
According to the Tulsa World, OBNDD said there have been "few" cases of hash making in the Sooner State. But OBNDD spokesman Mark Woodward said the goal of the bill is to "send a message" that illegal drugs won't be tolerated in Oklahoma.
Neither, apparently, will common sense or a sense of proportionality.
Oklahoma legislative analysts said the bill would cost the state $56 per day, or more than $20,000 a year, for each day someone is imprisoned. At that rate, if Oklahoma imprisoned five hash makers for 10 years each, the bill to taxpayers would be one million dollars.
How do they think that this is rational whatsoever. I do not get the point of doing this at all. I don't even know what else to say because I can't relate to their way of thinking.
Oklahoma legislative analysts said the bill would cost the state $56 per day, or more than $20,000 a year, for each day someone is imprisoned. At that rate, if Oklahoma imprisoned five hash makers for 10 years each, the bill to taxpayers would be one million dollars.
How do they think that this is rational whatsoever. I do not get the point of doing this at all. I don't even know what else to say because I can't relate to their way of thinking.
I think this will only hurt us more. You can't win a war on drugs, in my opinion... nor do I think there should even be one.
I've never done drugs, but I'm fine with letting people do as they please to their own bodies on their own time.
Just as long as they still pay any consequences for hurting others while under the influence. That's still obviously inexcusable, and they should still be held accountable for their actions while high or drunk or tripping or whatever.
We're losing money by jailing drug users, when the government could be making money by taxing these substances.
I predict that the first state to fully embrace marijuana, i.e. developing laws for its sale and control, will receive a large economic boost. I'm from Minnesota and we have a large agricultural research university (U of M). I don't see why we haven't legalized the retailing of pot, with some additional laws barring minors from purchasing or consuming it, driving under the influence, etc, and then tax the shit out of it. This would also have the effect of reducing revenue to street gangs who sell weed to fund their other gang activities. The hard drugs market, as far as I know, has a much much smaller user base.
Gotta love that I live in the Netherlands. Weed or hash isn't even that special, and in my opinion 2 years in prison for something like this is as absurd as cutting someone has hand of after stealing some candy.
On April 24 2011 03:28 A3iL3r0n wrote: I predict that the first state to fully embrace marijuana, i.e. developing laws for its sale and control, will receive a large economic boost. I'm from Minnesota and we have a large agricultural research university (U of M). I don't see why we haven't legalized the retailing of pot, with some additional laws barring minors from purchasing or consuming it, driving under the influence, etc, and then tax the shit out of it. This would also have the effect of reducing revenue to street gangs who sell weed to fund their other gang activities. The hard drugs market, as far as I know, has a much much smaller user base.
Yeah I have been saying the same thing. It really doesnt make sense to me as to why the government doesnt do this for those exact reasons that you stated. It would be a huge economic industry with tons of profit and it would reduce gangs, crime, ect.. The prisons would be ridiculously less full which is a problem right now. I see pros and no cons.
On April 24 2011 03:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: We're losing money by jailing drug users, when the government could be making money by taxing these substances.
This basically sums up my opinion on drug laws. Nobody is being hurt except the person who chooses to hurt him or herself. Why is it such a large felony?
That is fucked up. It's a non violent crime. Prisons are already so crowded. There's really nothing more to say. The people who voted for this bill are crazy and are definitely not perusing the best interests of their state.
While I don't agree with OK's decision, I think the worst turn of events is if other states follow. While I don't do drugs, I am against government control on anything and pot barely qualifies as something.
Sad to see, but its hard to be disappointed in the southern USA. They set the bar so low with their regressive thinking that I have a hard time being surprised by this.
They hate paying taxes, but they love spending money on their prison systems with tax money. Gotta love the south!
Well a big part of our ecofuck in OK is that our state constitution doesn't allow our legislature to raise taxes unless the people bring up and vote for the idea of a tax raise. This coupled with the fact that every conservative politician is praising more tax cuts means that we are broke, won't get out of it because good luck making Oklahoma residents vote for a tax increase and we are also doing stupid shit like this that just makes the debt even worse.
I may be wrong about some of those points because I learned most of it in an after-class conversation with my Federal Government professor and don't remember every bit.
Seriously. If you can't fight them, join them. Why go against the general trend?
I do believe 420 should be taxed and legal, but I doubt how economically feasible is it to tax it. There is already a huge underground market for it; should you tax it, it's probably going to cost more than the current price, giving little incentives for people to buy.
On April 24 2011 03:35 Pjj wrote: Gotta love that I live in the Netherlands. Weed or hash isn't even that special, and in my opinion 2 years in prison for something like this is as absurd as cutting someone has hand of after stealing some candy.
Oh, so jealous!
This legislation is so arbitrary; makes no sense at all... I doubt I'll ever see this plant legalized in my life time. The hate for it is so irrational as demonstrated by this law.
On April 24 2011 03:46 Sufficiency wrote: Seriously. If you can't fight them, join them. Why go against the general trend?
I do believe 420 should be taxed and legal, but I doubt how economically feasible is it to tax it. There is already a huge underground market for it; should you tax it, it's probably going to cost more than the current price, giving little incentives for people to buy.
if it's legal, more people will be growing it (on a mass scale, no less). supply and demand says that it should become cheaper if there's more growers, right? with or without a tax, it should become cheaper - unless the tax is sumthin cwazzzyy. the underground markets will get crushed by the business world that knows how to capitalize on Cali's #1 cash crop ya digggggg
This could work. I sure wouldn't do it when people are getting 2 years and a 50k fine for it. Hopefully, less hash would be created, less people get in trouble, and maybe other states can follow suit. Or it could be legalized. But this is a good idea, current penalties are just not working.
On April 24 2011 03:46 Sufficiency wrote: Seriously. If you can't fight them, join them. Why go against the general trend?
I do believe 420 should be taxed and legal, but I doubt how economically feasible is it to tax it. There is already a huge underground market for it; should you tax it, it's probably going to cost more than the current price, giving little incentives for people to buy.
I'm assuming you don't smoke because I would GLADLY pay $5 in tax to pick up in a store, and smoke legally in my own fucking home.
Instead of meeting up with some creepy mother fucker in a park risking getting in trouble just because thats how I like to relax.
On April 24 2011 03:53 ampson wrote: This could work. I sure wouldn't do it when people are getting 2 years and a 50k fine for it. Hopefully, less hash would be created, less people get in trouble, and maybe other states can follow suit. Or it could be legalized. But this is a good idea, current penalties are just not working.
On April 24 2011 03:46 Sufficiency wrote: Seriously. If you can't fight them, join them. Why go against the general trend?
I do believe 420 should be taxed and legal, but I doubt how economically feasible is it to tax it. There is already a huge underground market for it; should you tax it, it's probably going to cost more than the current price, giving little incentives for people to buy.
There's already an insane "black market tax" in certain regions of the United States. A federal or state tax would be less than that.
On April 24 2011 03:46 Sufficiency wrote: Seriously. If you can't fight them, join them. Why go against the general trend?
I do believe 420 should be taxed and legal, but I doubt how economically feasible is it to tax it. There is already a huge underground market for it; should you tax it, it's probably going to cost more than the current price, giving little incentives for people to buy.
There's already an insane "black market tax" in certain regions of the United States. A federal or state tax would be less than that.
Yeah, growing your own marijuana is extremely cheap and easy. The only drawback is that it's illegal (and maybe you don't like the smell). The only reason an oz of mid-grade bud is more than $30 is the risk involved, which is what drives the prices up and up.
Give a man a joint, he'll be high for a day. Give a man a clone, he can be high for a lifetime.
On April 24 2011 03:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think this will only hurt us more. You can't win a war on drugs, in my opinion... nor do I think there should even be one.
I've never done drugs, but I'm fine with letting people do as they please to their own bodies on their own time.
Just as long as they still pay any consequences for hurting others while under the influence. That's still obviously inexcusable, and they should still be held accountable for their actions while high or drunk or tripping or whatever.
We're losing money by jailing drug users, when the government could be making money by taxing these substances.
This covers my opinion on it. You cannot regulate something away when there is a strong demand for it. When you make it an even more serious offense you raise the stakes. Now instead of going "aw shucks" when you are about to get busted you will do everything within your power to get away. That will increase violence.
Legalise it, tax it. You cut down money spent on enforcement and prison terms related to "minor" drug offenses and on the flip side you earn tax revenues. More countries need this foresight. And without taking (too big) a dig at the US, not all problems can be solved by throwing guns and laws at them.
On April 24 2011 03:53 ampson wrote: This could work. I sure wouldn't do it when people are getting 2 years and a 50k fine for it. Hopefully, less hash would be created, less people get in trouble, and maybe other states can follow suit. Or it could be legalized. But this is a good idea, current penalties are just not working.
This is really naive. Read my post above for what will happen. You cannot regulate demand away and if there is demand there will always be someone willing to meet it. As the risk of meeting the demand increases, so do the rewards.
A bit harsh but I don't mind it. I'd love to see harsher rules on drug usage/dealing in Canada to be honest. They are fully aware that they are breaking laws when using, so why shouldn't they get a punishment for knowingly breaking the law? I have no respect for people that take drugs so I may be biased on my view of these laws but who isn't?
On April 24 2011 04:08 Maxwell3 wrote: These are the same conservatives that would never support a Liberal because "deyr takin rrhhh rights awayz!"
As much of a sweeping generalization as that may be, I was always curious as to how someone could be a rampant gun owner because *it's a freedom thing* but also couldn't stand to let others have their own drugs because... it's not a freedom thing? It's just so obviously wrong? Something else?
If someone could clarify that, I'd be most appreciative!
On April 24 2011 04:08 Maxwell3 wrote: These are the same conservatives that would never support a Liberal because "deyr takin rrhhh rights awayz!"
As much of a sweeping generalization as that may be, I was always curious as to how someone could be a rampant gun owner because *it's a freedom thing* but also couldn't stand to let others have their own drugs because... it's not a freedom thing? It's just so obviously wrong? Something else?
If someone could clarify that, I'd be most appreciative!
I really don't like making generalizations like this, but honestly I'm fed up with this already. Guns are okay, but gay marriage, drugs, abortion, etc are not. It seems like only when laws support conservatives they are okay.
This is straight up madness...Making hashish can be as simple as compressing kief. When will the insanity of "weed is bad!!!!" end?
Thank something I'm in Colorado going to college, things are a little more calmed down out here.
Some things that I have heard which is strange about places like Oklahoma and Kansas and states in that area, weed is treated pretty much like cocaine or something like that, and priced to match. What would sell for 20-30 dollars and eighth here in Colorado would be upwards of 70 dollars there. Hash even more so, and the actual good bud here in CO, they don't even know what weed this good looks like, let alone feels like when you smoke it.
Makes me sad that so many people in this country have such loose assumptions about marijuana that are based on either bad information or from experience with really bad weed. There is so much variety and difference in the crazy amount of breeding going on by pretty much all the growers out here, getting some truly magical buds.
I mean there's a major MAJOR difference between Sativa and Indica strains of Cannabis, and the infinite ways of making hybrids between different kinds to produce different effects.
How about a narcotic strength painkiller with no withdraw effects when you are over the pain? Yup. An anti-nausea effect good enough to allow chemo patients to eat right after they smoke a bowl, even right after a treatment? Yup. A muscle relaxant with no long list of life changing risks and side effects? Yup.
Speaking of that, those Depression medications, antacid medications, nausea medications, Honestly just think back to the last commercial you saw for some type of medication on TV. Think about that loooooong list of things that can go wrong if you take that medication. Ya you remember those. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, sore _____, allergic reactions (some of which can be life threatening), uncontrolled muscle spasms, (for depression suicidal thoughts or tendencies is ALWAYS listed, and that pisses me the fuck off. Giving a depressed person something that will not make them happier, but push them a little closer to actually doing something....even if that something is just killing themself. It doesn't matter, society just needs them to do SOMETHING right?) The list goes on and on, with DEATH mentioned at least once every commercial. Sickens me.
Here's the list for Marijuana.
Hungry.
Happy.
Minor depth perception impairment (not always present, seems to depend on the person)
These are the pretty much universal effects of all bud, no matter the strain.
Tired, feeling of heavyness or or extreme comfort. This comes from the Indica strain primarily, what people assume as the "couch potato stoner" that smokes a bowl and doesn't move the next few hours, He was smoking a VERY heavy, most likely pure Indica strain.
The Sativa strain is more attributed to the "head high" with the most dominate side effect that people like to talk about is "paranoia".
I have a problem with people using that word though, since I have a better definition for the effect. It is nothing more than the person thinking more than they are accustomed to. For every situation we are in, there are an infinite amount of possibilities present for the next moment. Normally people don't pay much mind to the situations they could find themselves in based on different decisions they make at the current time, while when baked, it's not even a conscience effort. It just happens. And all those different paths and situations fly in, confusing most unexperienced smokers and people of lesser minds. If you followed that, thank you. Shit like that's hard to type.
Ok, Rant DONE. TSL TIME GO.
Please people, read this post, learn a bit about weed, tell somebody to smoke a bowl with you that hates it, and talk. Just fucking talk. You will have the best conversation you have had in a long time.
Hahahaha. Have any of you guys ever been to Oklahoma ? Not exactly a stoners fantasy land. If you want to make Hash or Grow Marijuana that's cool. Just go to another state. Colorado, Oregon, California ... Of everyone complaining about this silly law, I bet 0 of them live in Oklahoma anyway. -_-
On April 24 2011 04:23 ladytr0n wrote: Hahahaha. Have any of you guys ever been to Oklahoma ? Not exactly a stoners fantasy land. If you want to make Hash or Grow Marijuana that's cool. Just go to another state. Colorado, Oregon, California ... Of everyone complaining about this silly law, I bet 0 of them live in Oklahoma anyway. -_-
I do.
And people wonder why everyone here is robotripping every day and stealing mommy's benzos.
On April 24 2011 04:24 Thrill wrote: Good law. No objections.
Can you elaborate please? I'm curious as to why you feel this way.
Your opinion is quite different from that of many others in the thread (including my own), and we've taken the time to express why we disagree with the law.
I did quite a bit of research for a speech on a topic similar to this, and all I can say is that more drug laws are only going to aggravate the problem...
This is just stupid, how can this pass with such overwhelming numbers when other states are essentially legalizing it with such minor penalties...this boggles my mind. My condolences to any pot smokers in OK, sheesh..
Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
On April 24 2011 04:21 N3rV[Green] wrote: Speaking of that, those Depression medications, antacid medications, nausea medications, Honestly just think back to the last commercial you saw for some type of medication on TV. Think about that loooooong list of things that can go wrong if you take that medication. Ya you remember those. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, sore _____, allergic reactions (some of which can be life threatening), uncontrolled muscle spasms, (for depression suicidal thoughts or tendencies is ALWAYS listed, and that pisses me the fuck off. Giving a depressed person something that will not make them happier, but push them a little closer to actually doing something....even if that something is just killing themself. It doesn't matter, society just needs them to do SOMETHING right?) The list goes on and on, with DEATH mentioned at least once every commercial. Sickens me.
Pharmaceuticals companies have to protect themselves which is why they list those side effects. Usually, there are 2-3 common side effects (IE they happen in around 10% of people or slightly more or less) which are for example nausea and diarrhea with most antibiotics. When they give you the medication, pharmacists have an obligation to warn you about the side effects and what to do if they occur to you. Rarely are these side effects very significant. Then, there are side effects that happened in around 1-3% of people, also some minor effects (headaches for example). Major side effects (for example uncontrolled muscle spasms) are always rare (because if they weren't the medication would be taken off the market or never have made it there if the side effect was discovered before it was published) and pharmacists/doctors also have a duty to warn patients and follow up on people at risk to develop these effects.
As far as allergic reactions go, it is written on literally every medication. Every time you put a foreign substance in your body, there is a chance of your body rejecting it. Previous allergic reactions (penicillin allergy for example is common) are kept in patient files and people are warned of what to look for towards these reactions to make sure they take the proper action if they suffer them (ambulance if you have trouble breathing, stopping the antibiotic and seeing the doctor if they develop a rash).
You didn't address it, but for pain killers or medication that can be addicting, pharmacists also follow very closely the medication refill dates to keep people in check and will not serve such medication in advance. Patients that are thought to be abusive of them are followed closely (we have people in our pharmacy that we only serve 1 day at a time for example because of abuse).
Overall, your attacks on medication are unfounded. It is a very different from just giving you medication and telling you to get out. Pharmacists have a responsibility to assure correct treatment for patients, notice interactions (so that patients are subjected to the least amount of side effects possible, although this can be an impossible task when patients have several diseases and take several different medication) and follow up on patients when they refill their medication to be sure they are responding well to the treatment. This is why you can't compare medication gotten in a pharmacy to substances acquired on the side of the street.
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years"
I don't really see the problem here. The article states that what the law will target, is the producers, not distributors and users, meaning that for the vast majority of those involved in MJ, only a small percentage will be affected.
Of course yea, targeting production means having a few private plants for own use will also be a lot more "dangerous", as well as local supply going down, but there's always import from other states, right? It's not like this law is adding extra punishment to the average users.
This law needs to be a part of a set of laws though, either against or for local MJ legalization. For; it could be used to stop private growing and help institutionalize governmnent controlled growning. Against; to clip the production and thus reduce the ammount dealers can access. If it's just a law standing on its own without any future addendums, then all this will do is force people to import more.
The title is pretty miseleading. Its 2 years to life. My guess is the "life" part is just to give prosecutors flexibility and allows longer sentences for repeat offenders or large dealers or something? Either way still stupid
On April 24 2011 05:07 plated.rawr wrote: I don't really see the problem here. The article states that what the law will target, is the producers, not distributors and users, meaning that for the vast majority of those involved in MJ, only a small percentage will be affected.
Of course yea, targeting production means having a few private plants for own use will also be a lot more "dangerous", as well as local supply going down, but there's always import from other states, right? It's not like this law is adding extra punishment to the average users.
This law needs to be a part of a set of laws though, either against or for local MJ legalization. For; it could be used to stop private growing and help institutionalize governmnent controlled growning. Against; to clip the production and thus reduce the ammount dealers can access. If it's just a law standing on its own without any future addendums, then all this will do is force people to import more.
Yes and this benefits large criminal organizations which have the resources to mass produce and transport hash by guaranteeing them more business. Does that not seem like a bad thing to you?
Yay, more prison costs during a recession! It's not as if prisons (in general, not sure about OK) aren't already overcrowded, with lots of states cutting education and increasing prison budgets.
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years"
I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it).
trying to create a "drug-free" state. And yet there's alcohol. Sorry to be the guy who says it, but anybody who wants a 'drug-free' state is gonna have to ditch that too. Oh and cigarettes-nicotine's a drug too.
And what's even more disgusting, a quick Google search trying to find out the punishment in OK for child rape brought up this article, wherein it describes a man's ONE YEAR(!!!!!!!!!!!!) prison sentence for raping a 4-year old girl...: (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-06-16-rape-sentence_N.htm)
I am still baffled by the fact marihuana is still an illegal substance. And people talking about tax benefits, that is impossible. That would mean the US would be the most liberal country in terms of drug policy. HELL weed is not even legal here either, they just stopped bothering to prosecute people for <5 grams. Best part is the coffeeshops, it's all turning a blind eye. the coffeeshops have a license to sell weed, but production and selling is illegal. So basically you have a shop that sells a product that just dropped out of thin air (AKA they are buying from criminals.). Drug policy here is a house of cards, they are already drastically reducing number of shops and attacking the production much the same way Oklahoma is doing. Continued pressure from the EU and i see the Netherlands regressing within 20 years.
Fingers crossed that the US leads the way and just does the deed and legalizes it. But this does not make me hopeful of that happening any time soon.
On April 24 2011 06:20 Arnstein wrote: That is just so idiotic. People are allowed to drink themselves to death, but smoking hashish? WELL THAT'S JUST TOO DANGEROUS, RIGHT?!?!?
Well, to be fair, Oklahoma also forbits beer to have over 3.2% alcohol by volume lol. But I live right by Fort Sill, which isn't considered state land, so they sell whatever the shit they want :p
don't think of it so much as a harsh punishment compared to your thoughts on weed as a clear and cut message that people in Oklahoma don't want people who smoke weed to live here.
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years"
I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it).
Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man.
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years"
I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it).
Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man.
Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person!
I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer).
I really love Oklahoma (lived here all but 1 of my 27 years, the 1 was in Tokyo) but people here in general do have some backwards/close-minded/fear-based ideas, no denying that. I'll still take it over anywhere else I've been in the US. I can do what I enjoy with my free time, was able to buy a nice new house and 2 new cars within 3 years of graduating with a bachelor's from our largest university, which by doing some rudimentary practice and getting good ACT scores the state paid for in full (with extra every semester).
More on the topic, I personally feel people in general (and especially here) are much too afraid of marijuana, mostly because of fear campaigns that are not unique to our country. My wife from Japan thinks smoking pot makes you "go crazy" like freakout arms flailing type stuff...
This is not the only issue we could all benefit from understanding a little better before we make judgements about it.
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Marijuana is not addictive. Habit forming, yes,but literally anything can become a habit. It does not cause cancer. There have been no scientifically acceptable studies that prove psychotic disorders. Inform yourself... look for information that isn't distributed by the US government or by some idiot pothead trying to campaign for his favorite recreational drug. I recommend erowid.org for all of your drug researching needs.
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years"
I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it).
Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man.
Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person!
I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer).
Wow. Are you trolling right now or do you really just hate personal choice and freedoms?
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Marijuana is not addictive. Habit forming, yes,but literally anything can become a habit. It does not cause cancer. There have been no scientifically acceptable studies that prove psychotic disorders. Inform yourself... look for information that isn't distributed by the US government or by some idiot pothead trying to campaign for his favorite recreational drug. I recommend erowid.org for all of your drug researching needs.
+1 on erowid. Hands down the best website for finding in-depth, accurate information about all sorts of abusable substances.
On April 24 2011 06:20 Arnstein wrote: That is just so idiotic. People are allowed to drink themselves to death, but smoking hashish? WELL THAT'S JUST TOO DANGEROUS, RIGHT?!?!?
Well, to be fair, Oklahoma also forbits beer to have over 3.2% alcohol by volume lol. But I live right by Fort Sill, which isn't considered state land, so they sell whatever the shit they want :p
I love how americans talk about how they live in a free country, and they can't even drink beer with over 3.2% alcohol(I know this doesn't apply to all states). I live in a socialist country(almost communists!!!) and I drank a 12% beer last week. Fuck yeah 8)
On April 24 2011 04:08 Maxwell3 wrote: These are the same conservatives that would never support a Liberal because "deyr takin rrhhh rights awayz!"
As much of a sweeping generalization as that may be, I was always curious as to how someone could be a rampant gun owner because *it's a freedom thing* but also couldn't stand to let others have their own drugs because... it's not a freedom thing? It's just so obviously wrong? Something else?
If someone could clarify that, I'd be most appreciative!
Hey, I'm conservative and I'm quite strongly against the War on Drugs, at least against pot. That said, I also believe being high on marijuana while on driving should have equal penalties to DUI. Do whatever you want, don't do it in a way that can harm me, is my policy.
But I think a lot of conservatives do think that the decline in society has been in large part caused by drugs (crack cocaine was the most destructive thing to urban culture since LBJ's Great Society) and maybe generalize that to all things falling into that category? There's also a concern that "self-induced life ruining" is a drain on the taxpayer (I realize a good portion of potheads are productive members of society--nevertheless, there's a highly negative stereotype among the middle-class that they, in general, are not--productive meaning "tax-paying" in this case). "Do whatever you want, but don't ask me to subsidize your behavior once you fuck up your life," I think is the idea here. Now since its impossible to prevent the latter, you attack the former. Does this make any sense?
To put it into another context: Can you think of any productive tweakers? Well -- they are certainly very rare. Yet society can't find itself to be heartless to these people, and deny them 'assistance payments'/welfare. So, society does the next most logical thing to do--prohibits the drug use.
(Note: I know that meth is very different from pot, but in theory, this is where the opposition to legalizing it comes from.)
PS. marijuana is quite closely connotated with hippies...and we are indeed quite anti-hippies.
Oklahoma has a lot of strange situations regarding sentencing. For example, in some parts of the state, the law allows for 'up to life' for indecent exposure...not that it ever happens.
Drugs in general are a widespread issue in the state...think they're hoping to get this out there in order to deter, rather than enforcing it directly. Interesting approach, but doubtful that it works.
Edit: You can get beer here with higher than 3.2% alcohol, but it has to be sold in a liquor store.
On April 24 2011 06:20 Arnstein wrote: That is just so idiotic. People are allowed to drink themselves to death, but smoking hashish? WELL THAT'S JUST TOO DANGEROUS, RIGHT?!?!?
Well, to be fair, Oklahoma also forbits beer to have over 3.2% alcohol by volume lol. But I live right by Fort Sill, which isn't considered state land, so they sell whatever the shit they want :p
I love how americans talk about how they live in a free country, and they can't even drink beer with over 3.2% alcohol(I know this doesn't apply to all states). I live in a socialist country(almost communists!!!) and I drank a 12% beer last week. Fuck yeah 8)
you do realize anyone in the usa can drink a 12% beer?
That's absolutely disgusting. Life in prison for creating a substance that has been used safely as a recreation drug for thousands of years? I hate Oklahoma (being from Texas, that's a given). They have a history of this kind of non-sense. They're such a prudish state. Their beer and liquor laws are worse than anywhere except maybe Utah, and now their drug laws are clearly the worst in the nation. I wonder if this isn't also a racially charged decision. Everyone knows that hashish originates in the middle east. To me this reads "we associate recreation drug use with foreigners and we are taking a stance against both." So ridiculous. How many people even smoke hash? I hate meaningless legislation that is designed specifically as a way to assert a small group of peoples' radical values.
On April 24 2011 04:08 Maxwell3 wrote: These are the same conservatives that would never support a Liberal because "deyr takin rrhhh rights awayz!"
As much of a sweeping generalization as that may be, I was always curious as to how someone could be a rampant gun owner because *it's a freedom thing* but also couldn't stand to let others have their own drugs because... it's not a freedom thing? It's just so obviously wrong? Something else?
If someone could clarify that, I'd be most appreciative!
Hey, I'm conservative and I'm quite strongly against the War on Drugs, at least against pot. That said, I also believe being high on marijuana while on driving should have equal penalties to DUI. Do whatever you want, don't do it in a way that can harm me, is my policy.
But I think a lot of conservatives do think that the decline in society has been in large part caused by drugs (crack cocaine was the most destructive thing to urban culture since LBJ's Great Society) and maybe generalize that to all things falling into that category? There's also a concern that "self-induced life ruining" is a drain on the taxpayer (I realize a good portion of potheads are productive members of society ~ nevertheless, there's a highly negative stereotype among the middle-class that they, in general, are not).
Also, marijuana is quite closely connotated with hippies...and we are indeed quite anti-hippies.
The bolded part is the problem. Marijuana is considered by the DEA to be a Schedule I drug along with heroin, cocaine, and meth. This nonsensical association leads those with no experience with marijuana to come to inaccurate conclusions and make ridiculous statements. To the non-smokers out there: marijuana is NOTHING like other Schedule I drugs.
On April 24 2011 06:20 Arnstein wrote: That is just so idiotic. People are allowed to drink themselves to death, but smoking hashish? WELL THAT'S JUST TOO DANGEROUS, RIGHT?!?!?
Well, to be fair, Oklahoma also forbits beer to have over 3.2% alcohol by volume lol. But I live right by Fort Sill, which isn't considered state land, so they sell whatever the shit they want :p
I love how americans talk about how they live in a free country, and they can't even drink beer with over 3.2% alcohol(I know this doesn't apply to all states). I live in a socialist country(almost communists!!!) and I drank a 12% beer last week. Fuck yeah 8)
you do realize anyone in the usa can drink a 12% beer?
On April 24 2011 05:07 plated.rawr wrote: I don't really see the problem here. The article states that what the law will target, is the producers, not distributors and users, meaning that for the vast majority of those involved in MJ, only a small percentage will be affected.
Of course yea, targeting production means having a few private plants for own use will also be a lot more "dangerous", as well as local supply going down, but there's always import from other states, right? It's not like this law is adding extra punishment to the average users.
This law needs to be a part of a set of laws though, either against or for local MJ legalization. For; it could be used to stop private growing and help institutionalize governmnent controlled growning. Against; to clip the production and thus reduce the ammount dealers can access. If it's just a law standing on its own without any future addendums, then all this will do is force people to import more.
Yes and this benefits large criminal organizations which have the resources to mass produce and transport hash by guaranteeing them more business. Does that not seem like a bad thing to you?
Larger organizations instead of unnumerable small ones are easier to keep track of, either for legal action or corporate takeover in case of legalization. Making drug production more visible isn't a bad thing.
The bolded part is the problem. Marijuana is considered by the DEA to be a Schedule I drug along with heroin, cocaine, and meth. This nonsensical association leads those with no experience with marijuana to come to inaccurate conclusions and make ridiculous statements. To the non-smokers out there: marijuana is NOTHING like other Schedule I drugs.
This new bill is completely ridiculous. The mere fact that Alcohol is legal in the United States and Marijuana isn't is a laughable joke at best. The amount of Alcohol related deaths to the amount caused or involving Marijuana are mind blowingly different. We spending millions if not billions a year in fees involving legal cases and Alcohol, yet it's still legal and Marijuana isn't ?
It is kind of amusing to see this discussion about whether or not its unhealthy or unethical to take drugs. I think people should consider all the people that are victim of drug trafficing, smugling, extorsion, drug wars, and all other horrible stuff that happens because parents want to protect their kids from the reality. For every teenager saved from drug addiction in the west probably 100 kids died somewhere else. See Mexico.
I have no real oppinion whether or not it should be allowed. I don't do mariuana because I think its rather lame and alcohol do the trick for me. But please, if you want to discuss drugs, do it with a broader perspective than the consumer and those near him/her. It's a global issue, not local.
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years"
I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it).
Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man.
Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person!
I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer).
Cigarettes are extremely dangerous? Please. It's called personal freedom, and the ability to enjoy yourself. There's a reason alcohol is such a highly demanded substance. Because 1% of the population that uses it is dangerous, you want to criminalize it for the other 99%? Reason it's in demand? Because it makes life exponentially more fun.
On April 24 2011 06:53 Thorakh wrote:Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person!
I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer).
Why limit the freedoms of those who can enjoy drugs sensibly in moderation?
Doughnuts are dangerous to me if I eat too many of them. Should we criminalize those too?
TL seems to be a place of extreme bi-polar personalities. On one hand most of TL argues that video games should be illegal to play after midnight because it is 'bad for society', then on the opposite side, wants marijuana and other narcotics to be legal. You should really do a poll OP just so I can see how hypocritical a lot of TL is. Cheers.
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years"
I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it).
Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man.
Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person!
I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer).
Cigarettes are extremely dangerous? Please. It's called personal freedom, and the ability to enjoy yourself. There's a reason alcohol is such a highly demanded substance. Because 1% of the population that uses it is dangerous, you want to criminalize it for the other 99%? Reason it's in demand? Because it makes life exponentially more fun.
I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people.
Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others.
On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded.
EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not.
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years"
I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it).
Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man.
Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person!
I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer).
Cigarettes are extremely dangerous? Please. It's called personal freedom, and the ability to enjoy yourself. There's a reason alcohol is such a highly demanded substance. Because 1% of the population that uses it is dangerous, you want to criminalize it for the other 99%? Reason it's in demand? Because it makes life exponentially more fun.
I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people.
Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others.
On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded.
EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not.
I wonder what percentage of car usage results in the death of others... should we outlaw driving?
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years"
I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it).
Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man.
Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person!
I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer).
Cigarettes are extremely dangerous? Please. It's called personal freedom, and the ability to enjoy yourself. There's a reason alcohol is such a highly demanded substance. Because 1% of the population that uses it is dangerous, you want to criminalize it for the other 99%? Reason it's in demand? Because it makes life exponentially more fun.
I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people.
Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others.
On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded.
EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not.
I wonder what percentage of car usage results in the death of others... should we outlaw driving?
And then I wonder the percentage of car deaths resulting from alcohol. Also, one could argue that car driving is kinda a necessity whereas drinking alcohol is absolutely not.
On April 24 2011 06:53 Thorakh wrote:Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person!
I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer).
I think we should outlaw life, because it's way too fucking dangerous. It always ends with death.
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years"
I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it).
Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man.
Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person!
I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer).
Cigarettes are extremely dangerous? Please. It's called personal freedom, and the ability to enjoy yourself. There's a reason alcohol is such a highly demanded substance. Because 1% of the population that uses it is dangerous, you want to criminalize it for the other 99%? Reason it's in demand? Because it makes life exponentially more fun.
I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people.
Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others.
On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded.
EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not.
I wonder what percentage of car usage results in the death of others... should we outlaw driving?
And then I wonder the percentage of car deaths resulting from alcohol. Also, one could argue that car driving is kinda a nessecity whereas drinking alcohol is absolutely not.
Not really... With a a better public transport infrastructure to replace personal automobile usage we'd get by just fine. Not to mention cutting road traffic accidents, fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emission substantially.
That sounds like a reasonable improvement on our well-being and the well-being of those around us, and yet it hasn't happened. Hypocrisy?
Not sure why tobacco and alcohol are legal, but not this other substance. Make it legal and tax it heavily, not waste money putting people in jail for them to do nothing and waste resources keeping them there.
On April 24 2011 08:14 Thorakh wrote:And then I wonder the percentage of car deaths resulting from alcohol. Also, one could argue that car driving is kinda a nessecity whereas drinking alcohol is absolutely not.
Not really... With a a better public transport infrastructure to replace personal automobile usage we'd get by just fine. Not to mention cutting road traffic accidents, fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emission substantially.
That sounds like a reasonable improvement on our well-being and the well-being of those around us, and yet it hasn't happened. Hypocrisy?
I completely agree with you. The reason why that isn't being done is political and it's the same reason why alcohol is legal. It wouldn't work, just look at the attempt the Americans did.
On April 24 2011 08:14 Thorakh wrote:And then I wonder the percentage of car deaths resulting from alcohol. Also, one could argue that car driving is kinda a nessecity whereas drinking alcohol is absolutely not.
Not really... With a a better public transport infrastructure to replace personal automobile usage we'd get by just fine. Not to mention cutting road traffic accidents, fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emission substantially.
That sounds like a reasonable improvement on our well-being and the well-being of those around us, and yet it hasn't happened. Hypocrisy?
I completely agree with you. The reason why that isn't being done is political and it's the same reason why alcohol is legal. It wouldn't work, just look at the attempt the Americans did.
Yep. Even if we accept that it is the state's place to outlaw that which is harmful to us, I think the important thing is to weigh up the benefits of legislature against the practicality of enforcing it. Just like outlawing personal car usage or overeating, the war on drugs is just an impossible battle.
In the first place I'd like to think we'll grow out of our bad habits before we're forced legislate against them.
On April 24 2011 08:05 Wegandi wrote: TL seems to be a place of extreme bi-polar personalities. On one hand most of TL argues that video games should be illegal to play after midnight because it is 'bad for society', then on the opposite side, wants marijuana and other narcotics to be legal. You should really do a poll OP just so I can see how hypocritical a lot of TL is. Cheers.
One issue refers to kids doing stuff. The other, presumably refers to adults being allowed to make informed choices. They are two seperate issues aimed at different demographics. Comparing them is stupid.
Also don't come here throwing around big words to put others down. Bi-polar disorder is where a person swings between mania and depression, it has nothing to do with their views on matters such as this.
I don't disagree with the Korean law thing. I disagree with the Oklahoma law. That certainly doesn't make me bi-polar or hypocritical, it just means I can seperate issues and who they affect.
I completely agree that this is like the "war on drugs" is comPletely a absurd. Did you guys ever wonder with how illegal drugs are, how exactly are the drugs coming in and flooding the streets? At the risk of sounding "different", you guys ever cOnsider that maybe, just maybe, the federal government might be bringing, or helping in some way smuggle the drugs into the states? That maybe the "war on drugs" isn't about drugs, but about money. And that maybe the federal government makes more money off the drugs because they are illegal. Now, I'm referring to a small faction of the government. Obviously the government as a whole would make assloads of money more by taxing it. What do you guys think?
On April 24 2011 04:08 Maxwell3 wrote: These are the same conservatives that would never support a Liberal because "deyr takin rrhhh rights awayz!"
As much of a sweeping generalization as that may be, I was always curious as to how someone could be a rampant gun owner because *it's a freedom thing* but also couldn't stand to let others have their own drugs because... it's not a freedom thing? It's just so obviously wrong? Something else?
If someone could clarify that, I'd be most appreciative!
Never thought of it like that... Well, a large demographic of people that I know just got their opinions invalidated.
I'm curious how much more fucked up places like Mexico have to become before people realize the war on drugs is a complete and utter failure.
I'm also curious how some people in the United States (looking at you, bible belt gun toting bush voting christians) can on one hand say that everyone has a fundamental right (and can absolutely handle the responsibility) to arm themselves with tubes of metal that shoot out other pieces of metal super fast with the sole purpose of killing things, while on the other hand saying that we aren't responsible enough to know what to or not put in our own bodies.
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years"
I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it).
Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man.
Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person!
I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer).
Cigarettes are extremely dangerous? Please. It's called personal freedom, and the ability to enjoy yourself. There's a reason alcohol is such a highly demanded substance. Because 1% of the population that uses it is dangerous, you want to criminalize it for the other 99%? Reason it's in demand? Because it makes life exponentially more fun.
I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people.
Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others.
On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded.
EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not.
I respect someone who's straightedge if he's respectable.
Odd stance to take though... Cigarettes do give off second hand smoke, but unless you're in a stupidly smoker-heavy environment (like, you would have to be trying to be around this much smoke), I believe it's impossible to have ay side-effects of second hand smoking.
On April 24 2011 08:50 TALegion wrote:I respect someone who's straightedge if he's respectable.
Odd stance to take though... Cigarettes do give off second hand smoke, but unless you're in a stupidly smoker-heavy environment (like, you would have to be trying to be around this much smoke), I believe it's impossible to have ay side-effects of second hand smoking.
Working in a bar, having parents/housemates that smoke. Two commonly occurring situations. Second hand smoking certainly does have adverse effects.
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years"
I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it).
Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man.
Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person!
I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer).
Cigarettes are extremely dangerous? Please. It's called personal freedom, and the ability to enjoy yourself. There's a reason alcohol is such a highly demanded substance. Because 1% of the population that uses it is dangerous, you want to criminalize it for the other 99%? Reason it's in demand? Because it makes life exponentially more fun.
I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people.
Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others.
On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded.
EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not.
I think that argument is hilarious, "I don't need alcohol to have fun." I always think of the phrase "No you don't need alcohol to have fun. But why start a fire with sticks and flint if you have a lighter?" I can have fun without alcohol. But I've had some of the best times of my life on alcohol. Clearly a vast, vast, VAST majority of the GLOBAL population agrees. Danger to the person around me? If I can't control myself. But guess what, I don't drive drunk, ever. You're going to prohibit me from drinking because you assume I might not control myself? Should we have monitors on all poor people because they're more likely to steal? The effect of having a smoker in your life? WHAT? You want to outlaw cigarettes because of the effect of second hand smoke? The STENCH of cigarettes? My rooommate has nasty ass BO sometimes, can I send him to jail?
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years"
I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it).
Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man.
Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person!
I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer).
Cigarettes are extremely dangerous? Please. It's called personal freedom, and the ability to enjoy yourself. There's a reason alcohol is such a highly demanded substance. Because 1% of the population that uses it is dangerous, you want to criminalize it for the other 99%? Reason it's in demand? Because it makes life exponentially more fun.
I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people.
Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others.
On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded.
EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not.
=[
I think my life is relatively enjoyable, but I can't get enough of them toxic chemicals that just make it that much more amazing \:D/
That being said, after about a year of consistent drug use, I am 15 days sober lol.
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years"
I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it).
Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man.
Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person!
I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer).
Cigarettes are extremely dangerous? Please. It's called personal freedom, and the ability to enjoy yourself. There's a reason alcohol is such a highly demanded substance. Because 1% of the population that uses it is dangerous, you want to criminalize it for the other 99%? Reason it's in demand? Because it makes life exponentially more fun.
I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people.
Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others.
On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded.
EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not.
Haha this is what I call the 'wet blanket' response, you can't fathom altering your mental state so it automatically makes you more superior than the rest of the population... however I ask you just to think of the mere mortals who do imbibe, they won't stop if it is illegal. America tried it once and it didn't work, when prohibition was in full swing there was more speakeasy's in NYC than there currently is liquor stores in america right now.
It truly doesn't matter what you ban because you believe it is bad for people, no one will stop just because it is illegal. Think about it, you can score drugs in prison... if there is one place on earth you should be able to eliminate the supply of a substance it should be there. There is just no way a government can effectively limit supply of any substance that has demand to it, they just hand markets directly to gangs and cartels and the most violent people of said markets. Banning any substance is just stupid. The religous right who care about the 'family' or the liberals who want to friggin nanny everyone to death don't do shit but give power to criminals and put addicts behind bars.
The whole drug debate needs to framed as hating Mexicans who profit from drugs instead of focusing on the fact that weed isn't actually bad for you, as it's quite obvious that no one cares. I'm confident if CA changed the dialogue from "weed is safe" to "weed gives money to brown people" pot would be legal in a week.
Until then it's up to the NE states to be all reasonable and beat CA to recreational laws.
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years"
I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it).
Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man.
Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person!
I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer).
Cigarettes are extremely dangerous? Please. It's called personal freedom, and the ability to enjoy yourself. There's a reason alcohol is such a highly demanded substance. Because 1% of the population that uses it is dangerous, you want to criminalize it for the other 99%? Reason it's in demand? Because it makes life exponentially more fun.
I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people.
Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others.
On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded.
EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not.
Haha this is what I call the 'wet blanket' response, you can't fathom altering your mental state so it automatically makes you more superior than the rest of the population... however I ask you just to think of the mere mortals who do imbibe, they won't stop if it is illegal. America tried it once and it didn't work, when prohibition was in full swing there was more speakeasy's in NYC than there currently is liquor stores in america right now.
It truly doesn't matter what you ban because you believe it is bad for people, no one will stop just because it is illegal. Think about it, you can score drugs in prison... if there is one place on earth you should be able to eliminate the supply of a substance it should be there. There is just no way a government can effectively limit supply of any substance that has demand to it, they just hand markets directly to gangs and cartels and the most violent people of said markets. Banning any substance is just stupid. The religous right who care about the 'family' or the liberals who want to friggin nanny everyone to death don't do shit but give power to criminals and put addicts behind bars.
I'm not gona lie that whole argument about pot being just like the alcholoh proabition is the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
and you've obviously never been to minnisota we've got a liquor store in pretty much every town sometimes 2 in the bigger ones.
In my city and detroit there have been house explosions lately because of the butane used in the conversion process. Explosions can send brick walls flying randomly so I understand the need to crack down. Life in prison is a maximum, prolly more of a show than anything
On April 24 2011 10:27 MiniRoman wrote: In my city and detroit there have been house explosions lately because of the butane used in the conversion process. Explosions can send brick walls flying randomly so I understand the need to crack down. Life in prison is a maximum, prolly more of a show than anything
butane?explosions? from making hashish?
what kind of hash are they making lol
you sure its not meth or crack
the best hash is the bubble bag method using ice and filters
On April 24 2011 10:27 MiniRoman wrote: In my city and detroit there have been house explosions lately because of the butane used in the conversion process. Explosions can send brick walls flying randomly so I understand the need to crack down. Life in prison is a maximum, prolly more of a show than anything
butane?explosions? from making hashish?
what kind of hash are they making lol
you sure its not meth or crack
the best hash is the bubble bag method using ice and filters
and or/pressing keif crystals together
Yeah some people use a butane method, but an h2o system is fine anyway, I never understood it but I could just be uninformed.
I am absolutely against the legalization of marijuana in the United States, but this is absurdity. Maybe a maximum of 2 years in prison, but even that is a bit much for a first offense. Life is prison is total and complete blasphemy.
I generally think laws against marijuana are too lenient, but this is going a bit far. And this is coming from a person who hates smoking in all forms.
On April 24 2011 03:46 Sufficiency wrote: Seriously. If you can't fight them, join them. Why go against the general trend?
I do believe 420 should be taxed and legal, but I doubt how economically feasible is it to tax it. There is already a huge underground market for it; should you tax it, it's probably going to cost more than the current price, giving little incentives for people to buy.
The same reason we didn't have Al Capone's after the prohibition of alcohol was repealed
On April 24 2011 03:53 ampson wrote: This could work. I sure wouldn't do it when people are getting 2 years and a 50k fine for it. Hopefully, less hash would be created, less people get in trouble, and maybe other states can follow suit. Or it could be legalized. But this is a good idea, current penalties are just not working.
What.....This a "Good idea"...What...i ..what...maybe if they were talking about oh lets say Cocaine..or like idk Heroine? Maybe I could agree with that, saying that this law is a GOOD IDEA, for HASH!!!??? WHAT. Are you fucking stupid? One Million Dollars for keeping FIVE people who make HASH in jail for TEN YEARS (2 years TO LIFE, which from my understanding is 15-35 years before they can get parole...and even then they might not get out) so let's see here, let's suppose that 25 hash dealers are arrested and all of them are given the "Life" sentence, 56$ a day x365=20,440 multiply THAT by 25 people 22440x25= 561000 PER YEAR, and if they all get say 35 years 561000x35=19635000. Whose going to pay all of that? You are, in taxes. Now this is all theoretical, and my math maybe a little bit off, but anybody with half a fucking brain can see this is probably the stupidest drug law that's ever been passed.
On April 24 2011 11:17 Finskie wrote: I like this law, 2 years to life is abit over the top, but i definitely like goverments taking a more aggressive stance against drugs.
Butttttttt they're not.
Alcohol, caffine, cigarettes, etc.
I'm sure you do one of those drugs, stop trying to infringe on others rights.
On April 24 2011 11:17 Finskie wrote: I like this law, 2 years to life is abit over the top, but i definitely like goverments taking a more aggressive stance against drugs.
Butttttttt they're not.
Alcohol, caffine, cigarettes, etc.
I'm sure you do one of those drugs, stop trying to infringe on others rights.
Well, at least he's not infringing on anyones right to smoke weed!
On April 24 2011 04:21 N3rV[Green] wrote: Speaking of that, those Depression medications, antacid medications, nausea medications, Honestly just think back to the last commercial you saw for some type of medication on TV. Think about that loooooong list of things that can go wrong if you take that medication. Ya you remember those. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, sore _____, allergic reactions (some of which can be life threatening), uncontrolled muscle spasms, (for depression suicidal thoughts or tendencies is ALWAYS listed, and that pisses me the fuck off. Giving a depressed person something that will not make them happier, but push them a little closer to actually doing something....even if that something is just killing themself. It doesn't matter, society just needs them to do SOMETHING right?) The list goes on and on, with DEATH mentioned at least once every commercial. Sickens me.
Pharmaceuticals companies have to protect themselves which is why they list those side effects. Usually, there are 2-3 common side effects (IE they happen in around 10% of people or slightly more or less) which are for example nausea and diarrhea with most antibiotics. When they give you the medication, pharmacists have an obligation to warn you about the side effects and what to do if they occur to you. Rarely are these side effects very significant. Then, there are side effects that happened in around 1-3% of people, also some minor effects (headaches for example). Major side effects (for example uncontrolled muscle spasms) are always rare (because if they weren't the medication would be taken off the market or never have made it there if the side effect was discovered before it was published) and pharmacists/doctors also have a duty to warn patients and follow up on people at risk to develop these effects.
As far as allergic reactions go, it is written on literally every medication. Every time you put a foreign substance in your body, there is a chance of your body rejecting it. Previous allergic reactions (penicillin allergy for example is common) are kept in patient files and people are warned of what to look for towards these reactions to make sure they take the proper action if they suffer them (ambulance if you have trouble breathing, stopping the antibiotic and seeing the doctor if they develop a rash).
You didn't address it, but for pain killers or medication that can be addicting, pharmacists also follow very closely the medication refill dates to keep people in check and will not serve such medication in advance. Patients that are thought to be abusive of them are followed closely (we have people in our pharmacy that we only serve 1 day at a time for example because of abuse).
Overall, your attacks on medication are unfounded. It is a very different from just giving you medication and telling you to get out. Pharmacists have a responsibility to assure correct treatment for patients, notice interactions (so that patients are subjected to the least amount of side effects possible, although this can be an impossible task when patients have several diseases and take several different medication) and follow up on patients when they refill their medication to be sure they are responding well to the treatment. This is why you can't compare medication gotten in a pharmacy to substances acquired on the side of the street.
I would say actually that you can compare substances acquired in pharmacies to "stree-drugs" how many people in America, or in Canada for that matter commit substance abuse each day? are you going to tell me that Marijuana is more dangerous then prescription painkillerrs? are you honestly going to say that there are not people out there that get these "controlled" substances "before there refill dates" ??? Do You honestly believe that? how many vicodin does it take to overdose? how many tylonal 3's does it take to overdose? what about oxycoitn? How many people die from a "Marijuana overdose"? i'll give youa hint it starts with the letter Z and ends with O
On April 24 2011 03:46 Sufficiency wrote: Seriously. If you can't fight them, join them. Why go against the general trend?
I do believe 420 should be taxed and legal, but I doubt how economically feasible is it to tax it. There is already a huge underground market for it; should you tax it, it's probably going to cost more than the current price, giving little incentives for people to buy.
The same reason we didn't have Al Capone's after the prohibition of alcohol was repealed
because we didn't already have a vast network of distilleries and distributors already in place before prohibition?
its 100% not worth it the medical and social costs associated with the wider useage of it would vastly overshadow the meager ammount that we'd get with it already being sold and will continue being sold though underground channels to drug cartels.
On April 24 2011 09:42 Offhand wrote: The whole drug debate needs to framed as hating Mexicans who profit from drugs instead of focusing on the fact that weed isn't actually bad for you, as it's quite obvious that no one cares. I'm confident if CA changed the dialogue from "weed is safe" to "weed gives money to brown people" pot would be legal in a week.
Until then it's up to the NE states to be all reasonable and beat CA to recreational laws.
yes tell me how those mexicans are doing with all those profits they are getting from this.
On April 24 2011 09:42 Offhand wrote: The whole drug debate needs to framed as hating Mexicans who profit from drugs instead of focusing on the fact that weed isn't actually bad for you, as it's quite obvious that no one cares. I'm confident if CA changed the dialogue from "weed is safe" to "weed gives money to brown people" pot would be legal in a week.
Until then it's up to the NE states to be all reasonable and beat CA to recreational laws.
yes tell me how those mexicans are doing with all those profits they are getting from this.
The few cartel head boss dudes are among the richest men in the world. Their underlings die often, but if you've ever seen police raids of the actually big guys, I remember one of them had a classic gun collection larger than that of museums.
On April 24 2011 09:42 Offhand wrote: The whole drug debate needs to framed as hating Mexicans who profit from drugs instead of focusing on the fact that weed isn't actually bad for you, as it's quite obvious that no one cares. I'm confident if CA changed the dialogue from "weed is safe" to "weed gives money to brown people" pot would be legal in a week.
Until then it's up to the NE states to be all reasonable and beat CA to recreational laws.
yes tell me how those mexicans are doing with all those profits they are getting from this.
The few cartel head boss dudes are among the richest men in the world. Their underlings die often, but if you've ever seen police raids of the actually big guys, I remember one of them had a classic gun collection larger than that of museums.
the entire nation of mexico is gripped in a bloody civil war. Normal everyday people are being kidnapped and the cartels gangs are robbing hospitals and schools. you can hire a hit for only $20 and you think that the fact that a few are richer then the rest (not even close to the american super rich) make your argument even remotely good?
On April 24 2011 09:42 Offhand wrote: The whole drug debate needs to framed as hating Mexicans who profit from drugs instead of focusing on the fact that weed isn't actually bad for you, as it's quite obvious that no one cares. I'm confident if CA changed the dialogue from "weed is safe" to "weed gives money to brown people" pot would be legal in a week.
Until then it's up to the NE states to be all reasonable and beat CA to recreational laws.
yes tell me how those mexicans are doing with all those profits they are getting from this.
The few cartel head boss dudes are among the richest men in the world. Their underlings die often, but if you've ever seen police raids of the actually big guys, I remember one of them had a classic gun collection larger than that of museums.
the entire nation of mexico is gripped in a bloody civil war. Normal everyday people are being kidnapped and the cartels gangs are robbing hospitals and schools. you can hire a hit for only $20 and you think that the fact that a few are richer then the rest (not even close to the american super rich) make your argument even remotely good?
Edit: And guess where pot is legal?
Pot isnt truly "legal" anywhere in the world.
that being said. Legalizing pot would screw the mexican cartels as the tobbacco companies would run down their main bussiness.
On April 24 2011 09:42 Offhand wrote: The whole drug debate needs to framed as hating Mexicans who profit from drugs instead of focusing on the fact that weed isn't actually bad for you, as it's quite obvious that no one cares. I'm confident if CA changed the dialogue from "weed is safe" to "weed gives money to brown people" pot would be legal in a week.
Until then it's up to the NE states to be all reasonable and beat CA to recreational laws.
yes tell me how those mexicans are doing with all those profits they are getting from this.
The few cartel head boss dudes are among the richest men in the world. Their underlings die often, but if you've ever seen police raids of the actually big guys, I remember one of them had a classic gun collection larger than that of museums.
the entire nation of mexico is gripped in a bloody civil war. Normal everyday people are being kidnapped and the cartels gangs are robbing hospitals and schools. you can hire a hit for only $20 and you think that the fact that a few are richer then the rest (not even close to the american super rich) make your argument even remotely good?
Edit: And guess where pot is legal?
Decriminalized isn't legal. Legal means that there is a government sanctioned market. You know how tobacco companies don't send kill-squads to kill competing CEOs? That's because tobacco is legal.
On April 24 2011 04:08 Maxwell3 wrote: These are the same conservatives that would never support a Liberal because "deyr takin rrhhh rights awayz!"
As much of a sweeping generalization as that may be, I was always curious as to how someone could be a rampant gun owner because *it's a freedom thing* but also couldn't stand to let others have their own drugs because... it's not a freedom thing? It's just so obviously wrong? Something else?
If someone could clarify that, I'd be most appreciative!
Hey, I'm conservative and I'm quite strongly against the War on Drugs, at least against pot. That said, I also believe being high on marijuana while on driving should have equal penalties to DUI. Do whatever you want, don't do it in a way that can harm me, is my policy.
But I think a lot of conservatives do think that the decline in society has been in large part caused by drugs (crack cocaine was the most destructive thing to urban culture since LBJ's Great Society) and maybe generalize that to all things falling into that category? There's also a concern that "self-induced life ruining" is a drain on the taxpayer (I realize a good portion of potheads are productive members of society--nevertheless, there's a highly negative stereotype among the middle-class that they, in general, are not--productive meaning "tax-paying" in this case). "Do whatever you want, but don't ask me to subsidize your behavior once you fuck up your life," I think is the idea here. Now since its impossible to prevent the latter, you attack the former. Does this make any sense?
To put it into another context: Can you think of any productive tweakers? Well -- they are certainly very rare. Yet society can't find itself to be heartless to these people, and deny them 'assistance payments'/welfare. So, society does the next most logical thing to do--prohibits the drug use.
(Note: I know that meth is very different from pot, but in theory, this is where the opposition to legalizing it comes from.)
PS. marijuana is quite closely connotated with hippies...and we are indeed quite anti-hippies.
Thank you for the reply I can kind of see how a train of thought might be that if we can ban certain products that ruin lives, then people may become more productive. However, I don't think that trumps the inherent right and liberty we have to make our own decisions, besides the fact that conservatives aren't pushing to ban alcohol (which ruins plenty of lives as well) or other products.
This law is an utter joke and just another example of how stupid and hopeless society is even when facing an inevitable end to what they know. Like really how broke do you have to be before you're willing to budge from your ignorant, fascist views.
On April 24 2011 12:05 tryummm wrote: They're crowding up the prisons with people who aren't even violent...This is completely ridiculous.
When you turn the prison system into a business things like this tend to happen.
On April 24 2011 10:27 MiniRoman wrote: In my city and detroit there have been house explosions lately because of the butane used in the conversion process. Explosions can send brick walls flying randomly so I understand the need to crack down. Life in prison is a maximum, prolly more of a show than anything
That's what happens when you criminalize it. Instead of it being produced in a proper enviroment by professionals, you get a bunch of amateurs dicking around in their basement.
On April 24 2011 10:27 MiniRoman wrote: In my city and detroit there have been house explosions lately because of the butane used in the conversion process. Explosions can send brick walls flying randomly so I understand the need to crack down. Life in prison is a maximum, prolly more of a show than anything
That's what happens when you criminalize it. Instead of it being produced in a proper enviroment by professionals, you get a bunch of amateurs dicking around in their basement.
to be fair, if these guys are using butane to make their hash, then it's dangerous and is a fair reason to crack down on hash making.
On April 24 2011 08:06 Thorakh wrote:I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people.
Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others.
On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded.
EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not.
I think that argument is hilarious, "I don't need alcohol to have fun." I always think of the phrase "No you don't need alcohol to have fun. But why start a fire with sticks and flint if you have a lighter?" I can have fun without alcohol. But I've had some of the best times of my life on alcohol. Clearly a vast, vast, VAST majority of the GLOBAL population agrees. Danger to the person around me? If I can't control myself. But guess what, I don't drive drunk, ever. You're going to prohibit me from drinking because you assume I might not control myself? Should we have monitors on all poor people because they're more likely to steal? The effect of having a smoker in your life? WHAT? You want to outlaw cigarettes because of the effect of second hand smoke? The STENCH of cigarettes? My rooommate has nasty ass BO sometimes, can I send him to jail?
That is a flawed comparison. Using a lighter has no negative impact on you and neither on the people around you.
It's hilarious you think you can control yourself while drunk. Yeah, you can say you don't drunk drive, just like the rest of all people, who is going to say they drive drunk? But in reality, tons of people drive drunk and make accidents happen. But because the majority wants it, it must be right, right? " " Most of the world bashes each others head in for having a different opinion too, that must mean that is the correct thing to do, right?
Also, second hand smoking is very real and it kills people who don't even smoke themselves. If you want to kill yourself by using chemicals that supposedly make your life happier, go ahead, but you better not be affecting my life in a negative way.
Haha this is what I call the 'wet blanket' response, you can't fathom altering your mental state so it automatically makes you more superior than the rest of the population... however I ask you just to think of the mere mortals who do imbibe, they won't stop if it is illegal. America tried it once and it didn't work, when prohibition was in full swing there was more speakeasy's in NYC than there currently is liquor stores in america right now.
It truly doesn't matter what you ban because you believe it is bad for people, no one will stop just because it is illegal. Think about it, you can score drugs in prison... if there is one place on earth you should be able to eliminate the supply of a substance it should be there. There is just no way a government can effectively limit supply of any substance that has demand to it, they just hand markets directly to gangs and cartels and the most violent people of said markets. Banning any substance is just stupid. The religous right who care about the 'family' or the liberals who want to friggin nanny everyone to death don't do shit but give power to criminals and put addicts behind bars.
I already said a ban on alcohol is completely impractical, but it should happen nonetheless. It's just retarded hypocrisy from governments around the world, alcohol kills millions of people while marijuana kills nothing. Yet alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't.
I'm not trying to 'nanny' anyone to death. I am merely trying to protect millions of people. There is a government for a reason, it's not only there to build roads and cities. It has a duty to protect it's citizens. Whether the citizens agree with the protection is irrelevant. Most citizens are too dumb to understand anyway.
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years"
I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it).
Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man.
Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person!
I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer).
Cigarettes are extremely dangerous? Please. It's called personal freedom, and the ability to enjoy yourself. There's a reason alcohol is such a highly demanded substance. Because 1% of the population that uses it is dangerous, you want to criminalize it for the other 99%? Reason it's in demand? Because it makes life exponentially more fun.
I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people.
Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others.
On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded.
EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not.
I think that argument is hilarious, "I don't need alcohol to have fun." I always think of the phrase "No you don't need alcohol to have fun. But why start a fire with sticks and flint if you have a lighter?" I can have fun without alcohol. But I've had some of the best times of my life on alcohol. Clearly a vast, vast, VAST majority of the GLOBAL population agrees. Danger to the person around me? If I can't control myself. But guess what, I don't drive drunk, ever. You're going to prohibit me from drinking because you assume I might not control myself? Should we have monitors on all poor people because they're more likely to steal? The effect of having a smoker in your life? WHAT? You want to outlaw cigarettes because of the effect of second hand smoke? The STENCH of cigarettes? My rooommate has nasty ass BO sometimes, can I send him to jail?
I think it's sad that you can't have as much fun sober as you can drunk. (At least I can remember the fun times I've had...) And the fact that you're making a statement based off the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy (a lot of people have a lot of fun when they're drinking alcohol, so it's gotta be good!) shows how weak your argument is.
I'm happy you don't drive drunk. I also am all for letting people do to their bodies whatever they want, so go right ahead and get shitfaced with your friends and act like idiots (assuming you're of the legal age and you're not doing anything illegal). But your post seems to have a level of immaturity in it that just reads "alcohol = partying and fun woohoo!" as opposed to the sad reality that alcohol actually has very real consequences and hurts people far more often than it rewards them.
But obviously, you have the right to do as you please, as long as you don't hurt anyone else, so I'm personally not a fan of making alcohol or other drugs illegal.
On April 24 2011 08:06 Thorakh wrote:I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people.
Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others.
On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded.
EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not.
I think that argument is hilarious, "I don't need alcohol to have fun." I always think of the phrase "No you don't need alcohol to have fun. But why start a fire with sticks and flint if you have a lighter?" I can have fun without alcohol. But I've had some of the best times of my life on alcohol. Clearly a vast, vast, VAST majority of the GLOBAL population agrees. Danger to the person around me? If I can't control myself. But guess what, I don't drive drunk, ever. You're going to prohibit me from drinking because you assume I might not control myself? Should we have monitors on all poor people because they're more likely to steal? The effect of having a smoker in your life? WHAT? You want to outlaw cigarettes because of the effect of second hand smoke? The STENCH of cigarettes? My rooommate has nasty ass BO sometimes, can I send him to jail?
That is a flawed comparison. Using a lighter has no negative impact on you and neither on the people around you.
It's hilarious you think you can control yourself while drunk. Yeah, you can say you don't drunk drive, just like the rest of all people, who is going to say they drive drunk? But in reality, tons of people drive drunk and make accidents happen. But because the majority wants it, it must be right, right? " " Most of the world bashes each others head in for having a different opinion too, that must mean that is the correct thing to do, right?
Also, second hand smoking is very real and it kills people who don't even smoke themselves. If you want to kill yourself by using chemicals that supposedly make your life happier, go ahead, but you better not be affecting my life in a negative way.
Haha this is what I call the 'wet blanket' response, you can't fathom altering your mental state so it automatically makes you more superior than the rest of the population... however I ask you just to think of the mere mortals who do imbibe, they won't stop if it is illegal. America tried it once and it didn't work, when prohibition was in full swing there was more speakeasy's in NYC than there currently is liquor stores in america right now.
It truly doesn't matter what you ban because you believe it is bad for people, no one will stop just because it is illegal. Think about it, you can score drugs in prison... if there is one place on earth you should be able to eliminate the supply of a substance it should be there. There is just no way a government can effectively limit supply of any substance that has demand to it, they just hand markets directly to gangs and cartels and the most violent people of said markets. Banning any substance is just stupid. The religous right who care about the 'family' or the liberals who want to friggin nanny everyone to death don't do shit but give power to criminals and put addicts behind bars.
I already said a ban on alcohol is completely impractical, but it should happen nonetheless. It's just retarded hypocrisy from governments around the world, alcohol kills millions of people while marijuana kills nothing. Yet alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't.
I'm not trying to 'nanny' anyone to death. I am merely trying to protect millions of people. There is a government for a reason, it's not only there to build roads and cities. It has a duty to protect it's citizens. Whether the citizens agree with the protection is irrelevant. Most citizens are too dumb to understand anyway.
YOU are a fascist if this is your true opinion. Forcing shit on people who don't want it. The government is me and you and everyone in the respective country. So, if people don't want to get "protected" by something, then the government loses it's authority if it forces this shit on people. in a police state you also get "protected" by everything the government deems "dangerous".
Drugs shouldn't be illegal, because that is just handing money to crooks, what the government needs to do is legalize all illegal drugs and tax them heavily. Whoever wants the drugs will get them anyway, so the government should do its job of protecting people by regulating the dangerous drugs and make money while they're doing it.
There is no time in history where making a substance illegal has stopped the people from using that substance. Doing so is not only illogical it is dangerous to the very people it is supposed to protect. The mob got its power base in the US during prohibition because alcohol being illegal gave them a large reliable income that it use to gain power.
On April 24 2011 23:24 BlackFlag wrote:YOU are a fascist if this is your true opinion. Forcing shit on people who don't want it. The government is me and you and everyone in the respective country. So, if people don't want to get "protected" by something, then the government loses it's authority if it forces this shit on people. in a police state you also get "protected" by everything the government deems "dangerous".
Argumentum ad populum.
Democracy is the most retarded form of government there is. There is no single person on earth that has the knowledge and thinking capabilities to make a correct vote. Let alone all the billions of dumb people in the world. I'm fucking scared of the USA, you know why? Because it has millions of dumb people that are allowed to vote and arguably the most power in the world. Technocracy is the only good practical form of government. Even in the best case scenario democracy is retarded since if every person knows everything, there would be no need to vote!
Your comparison of my view on governments to police states is laughable at best.
I'm honestly not sure why I bother reading these threads any more, because they just make me fucking furious.
The fact of the matter is this: as long as weed is illegal, the drug cartels will simply make more money. If it were legal, people would buy from a legal avenue in lieu of the dealers. Literally all marijuana sales would be diverted from illegal to legal means, without a doubt. The drug cartels would lose their biggest cash crop and virtually fade away.
On April 24 2011 10:27 MiniRoman wrote: In my city and detroit there have been house explosions lately because of the butane used in the conversion process. Explosions can send brick walls flying randomly so I understand the need to crack down. Life in prison is a maximum, prolly more of a show than anything
Im sorry but no. Butane is not used for making Hash. NO.
Butane can be used as a solvent for an extraction process of THC, but you get BHO, but Hash. BHO is Butane Honey Oil, which is about 99% THC, and kinda like weed crack. The problem there is the retards doing this INSIDE. This is a matter of human stupidity, nothing more.
On April 24 2011 08:06 Thorakh wrote:I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people.
Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others.
On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded.
EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not.
I think that argument is hilarious, "I don't need alcohol to have fun." I always think of the phrase "No you don't need alcohol to have fun. But why start a fire with sticks and flint if you have a lighter?" I can have fun without alcohol. But I've had some of the best times of my life on alcohol. Clearly a vast, vast, VAST majority of the GLOBAL population agrees. Danger to the person around me? If I can't control myself. But guess what, I don't drive drunk, ever. You're going to prohibit me from drinking because you assume I might not control myself? Should we have monitors on all poor people because they're more likely to steal? The effect of having a smoker in your life? WHAT? You want to outlaw cigarettes because of the effect of second hand smoke? The STENCH of cigarettes? My rooommate has nasty ass BO sometimes, can I send him to jail?
It's hilarious you think you can control yourself while drunk. Yeah, you can say you don't drunk drive, just like the rest of all people, who is going to say they drive drunk? But in reality, tons of people drive drunk and make accidents happen.
Just replying to this point:
At least where I am from, (in upstate NY) we never let people drive home after partying unless there is a DD. Not everyone has zero self-control, and even more importantly not everyone doesn't have friends that give a shit (because we do). Not making a fight here, just saying that there are drunk bastards that are harmless :p
For how many years has it been a war on the poor at this point? It doesn't serve a purpose anymore, just filling up the prisons with a lot of people that don't belong there.
Smoke weed? Go and sit in a cell for 5 years with a gang member.
On April 24 2011 23:24 BlackFlag wrote:YOU are a fascist if this is your true opinion. Forcing shit on people who don't want it. The government is me and you and everyone in the respective country. So, if people don't want to get "protected" by something, then the government loses it's authority if it forces this shit on people. in a police state you also get "protected" by everything the government deems "dangerous".
Argumentum ad populum.
Democracy is the most retarded form of government there is. There is no single person on earth that has the knowledge and thinking capabilities to make a correct vote. Let alone all the billions of dumb people in the world. I'm fucking scared of the USA, you know why? Because it has millions of dumb people that are allowed to vote and arguably the most power in the world. Technocracy is the only good practical form of government. Even in the best case scenario democracy is retarded since if every person knows everything, there would be no need to vote!
Your comparison of my view on governments to police states is laughable at best.
On April 24 2011 23:24 BlackFlag wrote:YOU are a fascist if this is your true opinion. Forcing shit on people who don't want it. The government is me and you and everyone in the respective country. So, if people don't want to get "protected" by something, then the government loses it's authority if it forces this shit on people. in a police state you also get "protected" by everything the government deems "dangerous".
Argumentum ad populum.
Democracy is the most retarded form of government there is. There is no single person on earth that has the knowledge and thinking capabilities to make a correct vote. Let alone all the billions of dumb people in the world. I'm fucking scared of the USA, you know why? Because it has millions of dumb people that are allowed to vote and arguably the most power in the world. Technocracy is the only good practical form of government. Even in the best case scenario democracy is retarded since if every person knows everything, there would be no need to vote!
Your comparison of my view on governments to police states is laughable at best.
Your opinion is poorly formed and based on ignorance, a general mistrust of humanity and false sense of superiority. I don't have time to go into all of the reasons this argument is 1) ridiculous and 2) completely derailing this thread.
On April 24 2011 23:24 BlackFlag wrote:YOU are a fascist if this is your true opinion. Forcing shit on people who don't want it. The government is me and you and everyone in the respective country. So, if people don't want to get "protected" by something, then the government loses it's authority if it forces this shit on people. in a police state you also get "protected" by everything the government deems "dangerous".
Argumentum ad populum.
Democracy is the most retarded form of government there is. There is no single person on earth that has the knowledge and thinking capabilities to make a correct vote. Let alone all the billions of dumb people in the world. I'm fucking scared of the USA, you know why? Because it has millions of dumb people that are allowed to vote and arguably the most power in the world. Technocracy is the only good practical form of government. Even in the best case scenario democracy is retarded since if every person knows everything, there would be no need to vote!
Your comparison of my view on governments to police states is laughable at best.
First of all I'd like to address your previous post. You can't force protection on people who do not want it. To do so would require the switch to a totalitarian state. You may argue that this is good (it is, according to you, in the people's best interest) but you wouldn't find too many to agree with you. If you don't even know that this is what you're actually saying then maybe you should either read up on political theory in general, or just be quiet.
Okay, onwards to the quote. The argument for democracy isn't that "everyone makes good decisions". The argument is that everyone's will is heard, and accounted for. However many other problems democracy may or may not have you can't really dispute this. I should note that there are less than perfect democrasies, and lots of them, where everyones will is not accounted for because of lack of proportional representation. The US is a perfect example of this.
So, I ask you, what makes democracy the most retarded form of rule? I understand what you propose instead (and impossibility), but you haven't really argued against democracy other than to bring up your fears of the US. Furthermore, if you think democracy is stupid because people are stupid then why are you so sure you are right? Aren't you too stupid to realize that you are wrong? I mean you should be included in the people, just as everyone else.
Alright calling democracy the most 'retarded' form of rule was me exaggerating a lot. It definitely isn't. However, it's still a very bad form of rule. I am also not excluding myself from the 'too dumb to vote' crowd since everyone is too dumb to vote.
You cannot expect people to know every in and out of a wide variety of topics that pop up in ruling a country. Most people are not even trying, hell, I've seen people not wanting to vote on Obama just because he is black. People voting on candidate X because he talks nice, people not voting on mister Y because he isn't in the same 'camp'.
Okay, onwards to the quote. The argument for democracy isn't that "everyone makes good decisions". The argument is that everyone's will is heard, and accounted for. However many other problems democracy may or may not have you can't really dispute this. I should note that there are less than perfect democrasies, and lots of them, where everyones will is not accounted for because of lack of proportional representation. The US is a perfect example of this.
There are no good democracies. (Most) people don't have the knowledge and expertise required to make anything close to an educated vote. Therefore, bad decisions are made all the time. Politicians only care about getting more people to vote on them and therefore will make decisions that please the dumb masses, making everything worse.
Furthermore, if you think democracy is stupid because people are stupid then why are you so sure you are right? Aren't you too stupid to realize that you are wrong? I mean you should be included in the people, just as everyone else.
I'm not too dumb to realise that we all are dumb and cannot make good decisions with our flawed everyday reasoning, media masshyping stuff that isn't even real, media completely missreporting science all the time, politicians that only care about themselves and short term stuff and the list goes on and on.
Honestly guys, I expected better from you, how you can truly believe democracy is a good system is beyond me. Even if it sounds a little cheesy, a council of old wise men is the best practical form of government. The masses do not know what is good for them, their neighbours, whole of mankind and the planet itself. They should not be allowed to vote.
Also, I'm sorry to have completely derailed this thread from the topic of marijuana and the Oklahoma law.
It's just another bill meant to target poor people/minorities. As with other "drug laws" I doubt you will see upstanding citizens with money and white skin going to prison for significant amounts of time if they break the law.
Hey, how about we don't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to incriminate people who smoke a substance that has vast potential to do good in our world when the government could actually exude itself from the extreme amounts of debt its brought upon itself by utilizing marijuana productively.
On April 25 2011 06:10 Thorakh wrote: Alright calling democracy the most 'retarded' form of rule was me exaggerating a lot. It definitely isn't. However, it's still a very bad form of rule. I am also not excluding myself from the 'too dumb to vote' crowd since everyone is too dumb to vote.
You cannot expect people to know every in and out of a wide variety of topics that pop up in ruling a country. Most people are not even trying, hell, I've seen people not wanting to vote on Obama just because he is black. People voting on candidate X because he talks nice, people not voting on mister Y because he isn't in the same 'camp'.
Okay, onwards to the quote. The argument for democracy isn't that "everyone makes good decisions". The argument is that everyone's will is heard, and accounted for. However many other problems democracy may or may not have you can't really dispute this. I should note that there are less than perfect democrasies, and lots of them, where everyones will is not accounted for because of lack of proportional representation. The US is a perfect example of this.
There are no good democracies. (Most) people don't have the knowledge and expertise required to make anything close to an educated vote. Therefore, bad decisions are made all the time. Politicians only care about getting more people to vote on them and therefore will make decisions that please the dumb masses, making everything worse.
Furthermore, if you think democracy is stupid because people are stupid then why are you so sure you are right? Aren't you too stupid to realize that you are wrong? I mean you should be included in the people, just as everyone else.
I'm not too dumb to realise that we all are dumb and cannot make good decisions with our flawed everyday reasoning, media masshyping stuff that isn't even real, media completely missreporting science all the time, politicians that only care about themselves and short term stuff and the list goes on and on.
Honestly guys, I expected better from you, how you can truly believe democracy is a good system is beyond me. Even if it sounds a little cheesy, a council of old wise men is the best practical form of government. The masses do not know what is good for them, their neighbours, whole of mankind and the planet itself. They should not be allowed to vote.
Also, I'm sorry to have completely derailed this thread from the topic of marijuana and the Oklahoma law.
MARIJUANA WOOHOO OKLAHOMA STUPID!
Your idea of a council of wise men, or especially trained and intelligent people will lead in no time to corruption and nepotism. If you give a small amount of people more or less absolute power, they will become corrupted (especially if we would still have the same economic system). And in turn, they will try to keep the status-quo, and keep their status as political and economic elite, and all your progress, that you thought they bring to you because their "experts" (who defines whos an expert? other experts?), is null.
On April 25 2011 06:10 Thorakh wrote: Alright calling democracy the most 'retarded' form of rule was me exaggerating a lot. It definitely isn't. However, it's still a very bad form of rule. I am also not excluding myself from the 'too dumb to vote' crowd since everyone is too dumb to vote.
You cannot expect people to know every in and out of a wide variety of topics that pop up in ruling a country. Most people are not even trying, hell, I've seen people not wanting to vote on Obama just because he is black. People voting on candidate X because he talks nice, people not voting on mister Y because he isn't in the same 'camp'.
Okay, onwards to the quote. The argument for democracy isn't that "everyone makes good decisions". The argument is that everyone's will is heard, and accounted for. However many other problems democracy may or may not have you can't really dispute this. I should note that there are less than perfect democrasies, and lots of them, where everyones will is not accounted for because of lack of proportional representation. The US is a perfect example of this.
There are no good democracies. (Most) people don't have the knowledge and expertise required to make anything close to an educated vote. Therefore, bad decisions are made all the time. Politicians only care about getting more people to vote on them and therefore will make decisions that please the dumb masses, making everything worse.
Furthermore, if you think democracy is stupid because people are stupid then why are you so sure you are right? Aren't you too stupid to realize that you are wrong? I mean you should be included in the people, just as everyone else.
I'm not too dumb to realise that we all are dumb and cannot make good decisions with our flawed everyday reasoning, media masshyping stuff that isn't even real, media completely missreporting science all the time, politicians that only care about themselves and short term stuff and the list goes on and on.
Honestly guys, I expected better from you, how you can truly believe democracy is a good system is beyond me. Even if it sounds a little cheesy, a council of old wise men is the best practical form of government. The masses do not know what is good for them, their neighbours, whole of mankind and the planet itself. They should not be allowed to vote.
Also, I'm sorry to have completely derailed this thread from the topic of marijuana and the Oklahoma law.
MARIJUANA WOOHOO OKLAHOMA STUPID!
Your idea of a council of wise men, or especially trained and intelligent people will lead in no time to corruption and nepotism. If you give a small amount of people more or less absolute power, they will become corrupted (especially if we would still have the same economic system). And in turn, they will try to keep the status-quo, and keep their status as political and economic elite, and all your progress, that you thought they bring to you because their "experts" (who defines whos an expert? other experts?), is null.
Obviously even a technocracy has its faults and obviously some sort of regulating system should be in place. I do not believe it is feasible in these times though, sadly.
Also, I do believe scientists and other intelligent people are less likely to be corrupted by money and power. Do not take my word for this though (like you would ;D), but I just have this feeling.
On April 25 2011 06:10 Thorakh wrote: Alright calling democracy the most 'retarded' form of rule was me exaggerating a lot. It definitely isn't. However, it's still a very bad form of rule. I am also not excluding myself from the 'too dumb to vote' crowd since everyone is too dumb to vote.
You cannot expect people to know every in and out of a wide variety of topics that pop up in ruling a country. Most people are not even trying, hell, I've seen people not wanting to vote on Obama just because he is black. People voting on candidate X because he talks nice, people not voting on mister Y because he isn't in the same 'camp'.
You're underestimating the general public. That said, representative democracy is practical because of the fact that you have fulltime politicians who can, at least in their given area of interest, indeed know every in and out of the topic or topics. What the voters do is try to decide who will work towards whatever goals they feel are in their and their countries best interests.
On April 25 2011 06:10 Thorakh wrote: Honestly guys, I expected better from you, how you can truly believe democracy is a good system is beyond me. Even if it sounds a little cheesy, a council of old wise men is the best practical form of government. The masses do not know what is good for them, their neighbours, whole of mankind and the planet itself. They should not be allowed to vote.
Also, I'm sorry to have completely derailed this thread from the topic of marijuana and the Oklahoma law.
MARIJUANA WOOHOO OKLAHOMA STUPID!
I've never said democracy is a good system. I will say, however, that it's the best bad system of all the available ones. As the post above me pointed out there's a myriad of problems with a council of old wise men. I'll bring up another one he didn't: Do these wise men know the best of everyone? What if you disagree with what they want? Say that they impose a way for everyone to dress, a time for everyone to pray, and a god for everyone to pray to? Is this the best, simply because they say so? How is this legitimate?
Someone who lived over 2000 years ago gave this a lot more thought, and yet he is still way, way off what is realistic or even desireable.
On April 25 2011 07:29 Thorakh wrote: Also, I do believe scientists and other intelligent people are less likely to be corrupted by money and power. Do not take my word for this though (like you would ;D), but I just have this feeling.
They're no more infalliable than anyone else. In fact, smart people are probably a lot better at justifying their corruption, both to themselves and their peers and the public.
It really still shocks me that marijuana is such a "bad" thing and it's being treated like it's meth or cocaine. I mean compared to alcohol it's really not that bad, alcohol does so much worse for the body as well as society. I'm not a smoker btw
Do these wise men know the best of everyone? What if you disagree with what they want? Say that they impose a way for everyone to dress, a time for everyone to pray, and a god for everyone to pray to? Is this the best, simply because they say so? How is this legitimate?
A council would need to consist of a very large number of scientists and other notable intelligent people, basically for each possible topic at least one member. This would also make sure the power isn't in the hands of a few 'old wise men', but in the hands of a very large number of intelligent people. Also, scientists are better trained in trying to understand stuff, so they should easily be able to communicate with the other members of the council. About your concern on deciding what is best, action should be dictated by what science thinks of the subject. In the situation where there is no science involved in the decision, scientists are generally smart enough to have a debate with real credible arguments. This could also be where social scientists chip in.
You're underestimating the general public. That said, representative democracy is practical because of the fact that you have fulltime politicians who can, at least in their given area of interest, indeed know every in and out of the topic or topics. What the voters do is try to decide who will work towards whatever goals they feel are in their and their countries best interests.
I think you are grossly overestimating the general public And of course the voters vote on the person that they think will work the most towards whatever goal the voters have. But obviously, that goal is more often than not, completely retarded. When we have loads of people voting for a man with a funny haircut in my country that makes all kinds of retarded statements about the Islam and another load of people voting for a political party that is only concerned with economy and doesn't give a crap about the environment or poor people. Then these two form a government with a Christian party, you have yourself a very bad government.
And this is in a fairly educated country that is high on the happiness lists. I don't even want to think about how dumb the masses are in lesser developed countries (or in the USA considering DONALD TRUMP is running for presidency, nevermind that people will actually VOTE on him, oh and dare I mention Sarah Palin?).
Yeah, um, I don't think social scientists would agree with your idea (I should know, I study political science). There's also this HUGE problem with difference of opinion about more or less everything in the scientific world. It's run on theories, and those can always be true or false. They're not necessairly more true or false just because one has more scientists behind it than the other, either. Then you have this problem with a lot of scientists, while being very good at thinking critically in their particular area, are, at least for me personally, completely inept at thinking critically about how to run society or just lack the ability to see to the best of the people.
I don't see how I am overestimating the public. Unlike you I believe people are capable of choosing representatives to represent their opinions, ideals and goals for society in the political world. On the other hand, I am strongly opposed to direct democracy.
Lastly, I don't know what country you're from. I'm very sorry if your political system is dysfunctional. And I believe the american system is dysfunctional. That doesn't mean democracy on the whole is bad. I'd like to advice you to read up on the issue.
On April 25 2011 08:04 sermokala wrote: I'm not even gona try anymore the amount of misinformation thats spread over the internet about pot just shocks me.
Oh come on, please tell me what information you're talking about. You got me all interested now!
Decentralisation (apart from education) is key in a democracy. I really dislike representive democracy as it also encourages different forms of corruption. Also participation of the people it's made up of, gets discouraged because "making an x every few years" for a party or a representive of a party (like in the usa) has to be enough for the people. People don't care about politics because they have the feeling that it is not important whom they vote for, because they're (politicians) are all the same. Which is in our modern times pretty true because parties differentiate only in shades from each other and you more or less don't have a say in their governing.
Do these wise men know the best of everyone? What if you disagree with what they want? Say that they impose a way for everyone to dress, a time for everyone to pray, and a god for everyone to pray to? Is this the best, simply because they say so? How is this legitimate?
A council would need to consist of a very large number of scientists and other notable intelligent people, basically for each possible topic at least one member. This would also make sure the power isn't in the hands of a few 'old wise men', but in the hands of a very large number of intelligent people. Also, scientists are better trained in trying to understand stuff, so they should easily be able to communicate with the other members of the council. About your concern on deciding what is best, action should be dictated by what science thinks of the subject. In the situation where there is no science involved in the decision, scientists are generally smart enough to have a debate with real credible arguments. This could also be where social scientists chip in.
You're underestimating the general public. That said, representative democracy is practical because of the fact that you have fulltime politicians who can, at least in their given area of interest, indeed know every in and out of the topic or topics. What the voters do is try to decide who will work towards whatever goals they feel are in their and their countries best interests.
I think you are grossly overestimating the general public And of course the voters vote on the person that they think will work the most towards whatever goal the voters have. But obviously, that goal is more often than not, completely retarded. When we have loads of people voting for a man with a funny haircut in my country that makes all kinds of retarded statements about the Islam and another load of people voting for a political party that is only concerned with economy and doesn't give a crap about the environment or poor people. Then these two form a government with a Christian party, you have yourself a very bad government.
And this is in a fairly educated country that is high on the happiness lists. I don't even want to think about how dumb the masses are in lesser developed countries (or in the USA considering DONALD TRUMP is running for presidency, nevermind that people will actually VOTE on him, oh and dare I mention Sarah Palin?).
Good you don't agree with people voting Wilders, i'm all for that btw, but your wise men council is a bad idea in my opinion. You want to go back to an aristocratic government, and i do not agree with that. One reason is captured in this quote i remember from my history class: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Other than that i think an aristocratic government is bad because of the disjointed nature between the rule of the country and the people inhabiting it. Add to that the selection bias you will undoubtely have in your council. The neccesary controlling organs surrounding it would become so cumbersome that these councils would become unfit to adapt to quick changes in society adequately. I think i could go on but this is severely off-topic already so let's get back to the weed imo.
i wonder what would happen if they could synthesize heroin? What kind of punishment would you receive?
Oh wait....pain killers.
prescription opiates are 100x more dangerous but are accepted because they are "necessary" in some circumstances. This bill is completely ignorant. What are they trying to accomplish? To me it looks like a "we'll show them stoners" type of situation. When they should be focusing on the bigger problems.
How many lives have been taken or even threatened by hashish?
i read this somewhere a bit ago
U.S.: prescription drug overdoses now match/exceed the number of illegal drug overdoses
My question is why aren't they fining or making laws/bills to better regulate the real problem. They waste their time fighting the war on peace instead of fighting the war on true drugs. the doctors fda or some one should be held responsible for not doing their jobs correctly and allowing LEGAL drugs to kill more than the illegal ones. For all the overdose deaths who is responsible? the addict? or the doctor who can't realize they are so dependent? Maybe the FDA for not regulating prescription narcotics effectively if at all? Or maybe the government as a whole? Either way this is complete garbage and an abuse of power in my eyes. No one is being punished for these victim crimes and they are wasting time focusing on the victimless ones.
sorry reading this made me a little angry. I'm sorry for people living in Oklahoma. Not because of the bill itself, but because the state government seems to be wasting time and money doing a lot of nothing.
On April 24 2011 11:17 Finskie wrote: I like this law, 2 years to life is abit over the top, but i definitely like goverments taking a more aggressive stance against drugs.
Butttttttt they're not.
Alcohol, caffine, cigarettes, etc.
I'm sure you do one of those drugs, stop trying to infringe on others rights.
That is correct. I do all of them, i dont see the point of legalizing another drug.
Do these wise men know the best of everyone? What if you disagree with what they want? Say that they impose a way for everyone to dress, a time for everyone to pray, and a god for everyone to pray to? Is this the best, simply because they say so? How is this legitimate?
A council would need to consist of a very large number of scientists and other notable intelligent people, basically for each possible topic at least one member. This would also make sure the power isn't in the hands of a few 'old wise men', but in the hands of a very large number of intelligent people. Also, scientists are better trained in trying to understand stuff, so they should easily be able to communicate with the other members of the council. About your concern on deciding what is best, action should be dictated by what science thinks of the subject. In the situation where there is no science involved in the decision, scientists are generally smart enough to have a debate with real credible arguments. This could also be where social scientists chip in.
You're underestimating the general public. That said, representative democracy is practical because of the fact that you have fulltime politicians who can, at least in their given area of interest, indeed know every in and out of the topic or topics. What the voters do is try to decide who will work towards whatever goals they feel are in their and their countries best interests.
I think you are grossly overestimating the general public And of course the voters vote on the person that they think will work the most towards whatever goal the voters have. But obviously, that goal is more often than not, completely retarded. When we have loads of people voting for a man with a funny haircut in my country that makes all kinds of retarded statements about the Islam and another load of people voting for a political party that is only concerned with economy and doesn't give a crap about the environment or poor people. Then these two form a government with a Christian party, you have yourself a very bad government.
And this is in a fairly educated country that is high on the happiness lists. I don't even want to think about how dumb the masses are in lesser developed countries (or in the USA considering DONALD TRUMP is running for presidency, nevermind that people will actually VOTE on him, oh and dare I mention Sarah Palin?).
The big problem is that intelligence=/=morality
A good leader needs to be 1. intelligent to know how to do what is good for the people AND 2. moral to actually do what is good for the people, instead of just what is good for them.
Then you have the additional problems of 1. even intelligent people can be wrong.. even in a large group, sometimes especially so 2. what is "good" can be a matter of subjective opinion. greater material wealth=good?, greater art=good?, what is the standard for whether something is good or not for someone (anything that doesn't kill you =good?)
Democracy..(at least Limited Constitutional Democracy) means that No one has the authority to remove an opinion from the debate (although it can be disagreed with, ridiculed, and/or ignored) because noone (nor any group) can be trusted to be 100% right.
I know that people in general are stupid and some are less stupid than others. I know that people are also selfish and evil and the only reliable way to stop selfish people is other selfish people.
If you have a problem with our laws then move out of oklahoma, move out of the united states for all i care. You live in a country thats given you the chance to live a great life more then most people in this world can say and youre complaining cause you can use and illegal drug legally. Theres people dieing all over the world and this is what you people are arguing about. GETTING HIGH!??? seriously grow up accept it or move to another country.
On April 25 2011 11:55 Sky0 wrote: If you have a problem with our laws then move out of oklahoma, move out of the united states for all i care. You live in a country thats given you the chance to live a great life more then most people in this world can say and youre complaining cause you can use and illegal drug legally. Theres people dieing all over the world and this is what you people are arguing about. GETTING HIGH!??? seriously grow up accept it or move to another country.
Lol.
And we are just exercising (and loving) our freedom to express our views, whether or not they agree with the law. If nobody debated or protested current or future laws, then they would probably end up being some pretty shitty laws.
On April 25 2011 11:55 Sky0 wrote: If you have a problem with our laws then move out of oklahoma, move out of the united states for all i care. You live in a country thats given you the chance to live a great life more then most people in this world can say and youre complaining cause you can use and illegal drug legally. Theres people dieing all over the world and this is what you people are arguing about. GETTING HIGH!??? seriously grow up accept it or move to another country.
You are an idiot. Accept that people are dieing because of the socioeconomic concept of "the west" and that there's a bigger picture than "your country- my country" as if it wouldn't interact with each other. In Mexico people get killed every day because of US drug laws you moron.
It really is depressing how naive and brainwashed the vast majority of people are when it comes to the subject of drugs and prohibition, and how blindly they accept the violent arrest and imprisonment of people as a valid "solution" to the "drug problem." People just do not comprehend when they say that "Drug X should be illegal" what the ramificiations of this are. They think "X is bad for society and it would be irresponsible for the government didn't make it illegal. Think of the message sent to the children!". But what they don't realize is that they are truly saying "State police powers should be used to violently harass, arrest, and jail people using X, and if they attempt to resist being deprived of their freedom, they should be killed." Like it or not people, this is the reality of prohibition. It is a brutal and maniacal system. Government has no place using coercive measures to control which substances people can and cannot put into their bodies. Stop blindly supporting economically-backwards, tyrannical drug laws and do some critical thinking of your own, people, for fucks sake. The modern war on drugs is one of the greatest human rights tragedies of the modern era.
"Patriots" who tell people to keep silent and leave the country if they don't like it, are in truth traitors. There is no higher form of patriotism, than to endeavour to improve the country in which you reside.
On April 25 2011 11:55 Sky0 wrote: If you have a problem with our laws then move out of oklahoma, move out of the united states for all i care. You live in a country thats given you the chance to live a great life more then most people in this world can say and youre complaining cause you can use and illegal drug legally. Theres people dieing all over the world and this is what you people are arguing about. GETTING HIGH!??? seriously grow up accept it or move to another country.
Lol.
And we are just exercising (and loving) our freedom to express our views, whether or not they agree with the law. If nobody debated or protested current or future laws, then they would probably end up being some pretty shitty laws.
Or did I just feed the troll? =[
No you're not feeding the troll, this is how people from Ok are.
They still think Americas in a great depression, and apparently you should be happy only getting paid minimum wage for pretty much every job out there.
On April 25 2011 06:10 Thorakh wrote: Alright calling democracy the most 'retarded' form of rule was me exaggerating a lot. It definitely isn't. However, it's still a very bad form of rule. I am also not excluding myself from the 'too dumb to vote' crowd since everyone is too dumb to vote.
You cannot expect people to know every in and out of a wide variety of topics that pop up in ruling a country. Most people are not even trying, hell, I've seen people not wanting to vote on Obama just because he is black. People voting on candidate X because he talks nice, people not voting on mister Y because he isn't in the same 'camp'.
Okay, onwards to the quote. The argument for democracy isn't that "everyone makes good decisions". The argument is that everyone's will is heard, and accounted for. However many other problems democracy may or may not have you can't really dispute this. I should note that there are less than perfect democrasies, and lots of them, where everyones will is not accounted for because of lack of proportional representation. The US is a perfect example of this.
There are no good democracies. (Most) people don't have the knowledge and expertise required to make anything close to an educated vote. Therefore, bad decisions are made all the time. Politicians only care about getting more people to vote on them and therefore will make decisions that please the dumb masses, making everything worse.
Furthermore, if you think democracy is stupid because people are stupid then why are you so sure you are right? Aren't you too stupid to realize that you are wrong? I mean you should be included in the people, just as everyone else.
I'm not too dumb to realise that we all are dumb and cannot make good decisions with our flawed everyday reasoning, media masshyping stuff that isn't even real, media completely missreporting science all the time, politicians that only care about themselves and short term stuff and the list goes on and on.
Honestly guys, I expected better from you, how you can truly believe democracy is a good system is beyond me. Even if it sounds a little cheesy, a council of old wise men is the best practical form of government. The masses do not know what is good for them, their neighbours, whole of mankind and the planet itself. They should not be allowed to vote.
Also, I'm sorry to have completely derailed this thread from the topic of marijuana and the Oklahoma law.
MARIJUANA WOOHOO OKLAHOMA STUPID!
Seriously, you think that removing the political elites and replacing them with a new set of "technocratic" elites will improve the state of affairs? Wishful, but foolish.
The role of government should be reduced to the prevention of fraud and force. All laws and agencies who do not fit within this strict scope should be abolished.
On April 25 2011 11:55 Sky0 wrote: If you have a problem with our laws then move out of oklahoma, move out of the united states for all i care. You live in a country thats given you the chance to live a great life more then most people in this world can say and youre complaining cause you can use and illegal drug legally. Theres people dieing all over the world and this is what you people are arguing about. GETTING HIGH!??? seriously grow up accept it or move to another country.
Lol.
And we are just exercising (and loving) our freedom to express our views, whether or not they agree with the law. If nobody debated or protested current or future laws, then they would probably end up being some pretty shitty laws.
Or did I just feed the troll? =[
No you're not feeding the troll, this is how people from Ok are.
They still think Americas in a great depression, and apparently you should be happy only getting paid minimum wage for pretty much every job out there.
On April 25 2011 20:44 AKspartan wrote:Seriously, you think that removing the political elites and replacing them with a new set of "technocratic" elites will improve the state of affairs? Wishful, but foolish.
Why is it foolish? Because the masses won't accept it? They probably won't, but that doesn't make it foolish. As I've said before, I don't expect a system like this to work anytime soon. Not with the problems the world has today. On the other hand, a system like this would greatly help in reducing these problems.
The role of government should be reduced to the prevention of fraud and force. All laws and agencies who do not fit within this strict scope should be abolished.
Who is going to build roads then? Who is going to provide poor people with afordable healthcare? Who is going to make sure companies aren't running rampant, destroying the environment? Who is going to make sure minimum wages exists and workers won't be exploited by companies? Really, I've never heard a more idiotic statement than that, sorry.
I have never said only scientists would be on a council, the most important part is that there are intelligent people on the council, people that are willing to see the other side of the argument and willing to change their opinion if there is enough credible evidence presented to suggest their opinion is wrong. This is in stark contrast with governments today, they do what they think will give them most votes next election. They are only thinking about the short term, which is bad. Essentially, they are following the wishes and ideas of the general public. However, the ideas and wishes of the general public are more often than not based on unfounded opinions, bias to certain topics, mediahyping and an unwillingness to accept other views on a subject. One of the most important skills a person can have is critical thinking and being able to see through media hypes.
You want to go back to an aristocratic government, and i do not agree with that. One reason is captured in this quote i remember from my history class: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Yes, power corrupts. This is also why a council should not consist of a few people. It should consist of thousands of scientists and others each specialized in a certain field of interest. They should be chosen by the scientific community (how this should work would have to be debated). Also, to make it more connected to the general public, one could also devise a system where half of the council is elected by the general public and the other half consists of scientists and others. In my view this would be a fair compromise between democracy and techno/aristocracy.
Well, as one of the lesser developed states I'm not really shocked. Thats just my 2 cents though, take it or leave it. Sooner or later they will be burning the blunts too.
On April 25 2011 20:30 AKspartan wrote: Government has no place using coercive measures to control which substances people can and cannot put into their bodies. Stop blindly supporting economically-backwards, tyrannical drug laws and do some critical thinking of your own, people, for fucks sake. The modern war on drugs is one of the greatest human rights tragedies of the modern era.
Sometimes, general publics just doesn't know what is good or bad for them. I'm not saying marijuana is harmful like opium, I'm merely pointing out the fact that governament should have the right to do so, should they regulate marijuana is another topic itself.
Eh, once more of generation x and y gets older and seeps their way into politics herb will eventually be less taboo. At least the people who haven't bought into the whole War on Drugs/let's overpopulate our prisons lol-trocity.
The current baby boomers and their parents grew up around a lot of very demonizing anti-drug propaganda. They are inclined to be less open minded about the topic. Until they um, get out of the way, not much progress will be possible.
On April 25 2011 20:40 vetinari wrote: "Patriots" who tell people to keep silent and leave the country if they don't like it, are in truth traitors. There is no higher form of patriotism, than to endeavour to improve the country in which you reside.
On April 25 2011 11:55 Sky0 wrote: If you have a problem with our laws then move out of oklahoma, move out of the united states for all i care. You live in a country thats given you the chance to live a great life more then most people in this world can say and youre complaining cause you can use and illegal drug legally. Theres people dieing all over the world and this is what you people are arguing about. GETTING HIGH!??? seriously grow up accept it or move to another country.
Lol.
And we are just exercising (and loving) our freedom to express our views, whether or not they agree with the law. If nobody debated or protested current or future laws, then they would probably end up being some pretty shitty laws.
Or did I just feed the troll? =[
No you're not feeding the troll, this is how people from Ok are.
They still think Americas in a great depression, and apparently you should be happy only getting paid minimum wage for pretty much every job out there.
But.. But..
I'm from OK too =[
Then you probably agree with my statement, don't you lol :S.
On April 25 2011 21:13 Thorakh wrote: Yes, power corrupts. This is also why a council should not consist of a few people. It should consist of thousands of scientists and others each specialized in a certain field of interest. They should be chosen by the scientific community (how this should work would have to be debated). Also, to make it more connected to the general public, one could also devise a system where half of the council is elected by the general public and the other half consists of scientists and others. In my view this would be a fair compromise between democracy and techno/aristocracy.
I agree, but I'd rather see representatives of the working class, e.g. trade unionists overwhelmingly represented in such a council -- they are the vast majority of the population and the needs of the working poor should be a nation's first priority. The problem most people would have with what you suggest is that 'intelligent scientists' for example, are often from privileged backgrounds who can afford the costs of education and might be unrepresentative of the majority of the nation -- though I don't mean to imply that educated scientists are evil, just that the language of 'intelligence' and 'technocracy' can easily be distorted through politics.
On April 24 2011 03:35 Coraz wrote: we'd win the war on drugs if the governmnet could macro better
Absolutely, and that is not just a clever word play. You can see the micro skills in the news and Cops' shows, they got some very well orchestrated timing pushes and game sense. In the macro sense though, they seem to be limited - they never quite manage to keep their contain or have their push reach the enemy production buildings, the raw horsepower isnt there.
I mean can you even imagine if someone one got life in prison for messing with a harmless piece of grass? I don't care if you've processed and sold 5 tons of hashish in the last month, people that agree to this are sick in the head. =s
On April 24 2011 03:35 Coraz wrote: we'd win the war on drugs if the governmnet could macro better
Absolutely, and that is not just a clever word play. You can see the micro skills in the news and Cops' shows, they got some very well orchestrated timing pushes and game sense. In the macro sense though, they seem to be limited - they never quite manage to keep their contain or have their push reach the enemy production buildings, the raw horsepower isnt there.
They split up their army, fight on too many fronts, try to harass without protecting their main, and fake tech so much that no one with game sense believes what the government is showing them. Fancy Play Syndrome, IMO.
Problem: Drug dealers not making enough money Solution: Make drugs illegal, profits skyrocket
Problem: Slave labor not as accessible as it use to be Solution: Private jails and life sentences for drug users, bus them to a factory across the street to work for 2 bucks a day
Problem: CIA plane crashes coming in to the US with 3.2 tonnes of pure cocane Solution: do nothing.http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cia+plane+with+drugs+crashes
On April 26 2011 04:13 jinorazi wrote: i'm surprised by the 44-2 vote more than anything. how the hell with people with no common sense allowed to vote on such matters?
-christians -republican ronald reagan fanboys -grew up surrounded by ridiculous government sponsored anti-drug propaganda from the 70s -group think/peer pressure to vote certain way (certainly no politician wants to be seen as the guy who is pro weed smoking. They're voting for their own job security. I bet there's lots more who would have opposed if it didn't put them on the spot.) -being funded to vote a certain way. -derp all drugs are bad, it's a black and white issue and it's all in the black. derp
just speculation
On April 26 2011 04:05 PlosionCornu wrote: I don't actually care since I don't smoke pot, or tobacco for that matter.
I'm not some kind of narrow minded purist, I'm just poor and weed is costly, so I avoid it.
I don't smoke tobacco but I am very opposed to a lot of the crazy anti-smoking regulations. I haven't smoked herb for more than 6 years but still care about how it affects my fellow bros/citizens.
Gotta look at the big picture guy. This isn't about smoking. It's about something much larger. It will affect you sooner or later. Only a matter of time if this kind of activity is allowed to fester.
Wow that is an outrage what the hell is going on in o.k??While all the other states are actually opening their eyes and finally allowing medical marijuana they go and do something like that??Just sounds like a way to make money off of people who are just trying to kick back and relax.
If a state did something like this but about making alcohol or their own cigs they would freak out about a penalty so harsh 2 to life?!?! What the hell?! Moon shine makers get off with a lesser sentence.All i can say is glad i dont live in o.k... i feel sorry for anyone who does.
On April 26 2011 06:34 Skoe420 wrote: Wow that is an outrage what the hell is going on in o.k??While all the other states are actually opening their eyes and finally allowing medical marijuana they go and do something like that??Just sounds like a way to make money off of people who are just trying to kick back and relax.
If a state did something like this but about making alcohol or their own cigs they would freak out about a penalty so harsh 2 to life?!?! What the hell?! Moon shine makers get off with a lesser sentence.All i can say is glad i dont live in o.k... i feel sorry for anyone who does.
I agree. I feel sorry for people who have to be surrounded by
I live in Texas and we actually get some of Oklahoma's crazyness. Thank god I live in a big city..
On April 26 2011 05:17 Warlike Prince wrote: Working as intended
Problem: Drug dealers not making enough money Solution: Make drugs illegal, profits skyrocket
Problem: Slave labor not as accessible as it use to be Solution: Private jails and life sentences for drug users, bus them to a factory across the street to work for 2 bucks a day
Problem: CIA plane crashes coming in to the US with 3.2 tonnes of pure cocane Solution: do nothing.http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cia+plane+with+drugs+crashes
How the war on drugs scam works <alex jones video>
I'm sorry but Alex Jones is a moron, don't take anything that he says seriously.
On April 24 2011 03:28 A3iL3r0n wrote: I predict that the first state to fully embrace marijuana, i.e. developing laws for its sale and control, will receive a large economic boost. I'm from Minnesota and we have a large agricultural research university (U of M). I don't see why we haven't legalized the retailing of pot, with some additional laws barring minors from purchasing or consuming it, driving under the influence, etc, and then tax the shit out of it. This would also have the effect of reducing revenue to street gangs who sell weed to fund their other gang activities. The hard drugs market, as far as I know, has a much much smaller user base.
If you tax the shit of it, whats to stop from those gang bangers to sell more product to people who wanna buy it with ought all the taxation. Since its legal it doesn't matter where you procure it from.
I would still buy of some random dealer I know then a store because its cheaper. Plus its legal after the purchase you don't know where i got it from.
On April 24 2011 03:28 A3iL3r0n wrote: I predict that the first state to fully embrace marijuana, i.e. developing laws for its sale and control, will receive a large economic boost. I'm from Minnesota and we have a large agricultural research university (U of M). I don't see why we haven't legalized the retailing of pot, with some additional laws barring minors from purchasing or consuming it, driving under the influence, etc, and then tax the shit out of it. This would also have the effect of reducing revenue to street gangs who sell weed to fund their other gang activities. The hard drugs market, as far as I know, has a much much smaller user base.
If you tax the shit of it, whats to stop from those gang bangers to sell more product to people who wanna buy it with ought all the taxation. Since its legal it doesn't matter where you procure it from.
I would still buy of some random dealer I know then a store because its cheaper. Plus its legal after the purchase you don't know where i got it from.
because it's only legal trough government sanctioned shops and no, it's not cheaper to buy from a dealer, because it's much more expensive to smuggle shit. the netherlands showed how it's done. end of the story.
On April 24 2011 03:28 A3iL3r0n wrote: I predict that the first state to fully embrace marijuana, i.e. developing laws for its sale and control, will receive a large economic boost. I'm from Minnesota and we have a large agricultural research university (U of M). I don't see why we haven't legalized the retailing of pot, with some additional laws barring minors from purchasing or consuming it, driving under the influence, etc, and then tax the shit out of it. This would also have the effect of reducing revenue to street gangs who sell weed to fund their other gang activities. The hard drugs market, as far as I know, has a much much smaller user base.
If you tax the shit of it, whats to stop from those gang bangers to sell more product to people who wanna buy it with ought all the taxation. Since its legal it doesn't matter where you procure it from.
I would still buy of some random dealer I know then a store because its cheaper. Plus its legal after the purchase you don't know where i got it from.
because it's only legal trough government sanctioned shops and no, it's not cheaper to buy from a dealer, because it's much more expensive to smuggle shit. the netherlands showed how it's done. end of the story.
Its legal to purchase but not to own. Plus depending on the location home grown is more common then smuggled in.
p.s if its anything like Liquor here in Canada. (taxed obscene amounts) The business model for selling the drug on the street will still be good. Grow -ops will still remain illegal as well as the sale of it. Though consumption wont be; a lot of people would purchase form a seller on the street for it to be more cost effective plus be higher quality.
If one gram of xxxx costs 15 bucks in a shop, or more why not spend 10 bucks on some dealer for some xxxx.
On April 24 2011 09:42 Offhand wrote: The whole drug debate needs to framed as hating Mexicans who profit from drugs instead of focusing on the fact that weed isn't actually bad for you, as it's quite obvious that no one cares. I'm confident if CA changed the dialogue from "weed is safe" to "weed gives money to brown people" pot would be legal in a week.
Until then it's up to the NE states to be all reasonable and beat CA to recreational laws.
yes tell me how those mexicans are doing with all those profits they are getting from this.
The few cartel head boss dudes are among the richest men in the world. Their underlings die often, but if you've ever seen police raids of the actually big guys, I remember one of them had a classic gun collection larger than that of museums.
the entire nation of mexico is gripped in a bloody civil war. Normal everyday people are being kidnapped and the cartels gangs are robbing hospitals and schools. you can hire a hit for only $20 and you think that the fact that a few are richer then the rest (not even close to the american super rich) make your argument even remotely good?
Edit: And guess where pot is legal?
The intensity of your idiocy is vomit inducing.
Same to thorakh. You're basically insisting that everyone hold the same values as you. You might as well be hitler.
On April 24 2011 03:28 A3iL3r0n wrote: I predict that the first state to fully embrace marijuana, i.e. developing laws for its sale and control, will receive a large economic boost. I'm from Minnesota and we have a large agricultural research university (U of M). I don't see why we haven't legalized the retailing of pot, with some additional laws barring minors from purchasing or consuming it, driving under the influence, etc, and then tax the shit out of it. This would also have the effect of reducing revenue to street gangs who sell weed to fund their other gang activities. The hard drugs market, as far as I know, has a much much smaller user base.
If you tax the shit of it, whats to stop from those gang bangers to sell more product to people who wanna buy it with ought all the taxation. Since its legal it doesn't matter where you procure it from.
I would still buy of some random dealer I know then a store because its cheaper. Plus its legal after the purchase you don't know where i got it from.
because it's only legal trough government sanctioned shops and no, it's not cheaper to buy from a dealer, because it's much more expensive to smuggle shit. the netherlands showed how it's done. end of the story.
Its legal to purchase but not to own. Plus depending on the location home grown is more common then smuggled in.
p.s if its anything like Liquor here in Canada. (taxed obscene amounts) The business model for selling the drug on the street will still be good. Grow -ops will still remain illegal as well as the sale of it. Though consumption wont be; a lot of people would purchase form a seller on the street for it to be more cost effective plus be higher quality.
If one gram of xxxx costs 15 bucks in a shop, or more why not spend 10 bucks on some dealer for some xxxx.
I believe that if they actually base the price on how much i costs to produce, then tax that, the price will still be significantly lower than any black market price will be. The only reason bud is expensive at all is simply the risk involved. It jacks the prices up and the only ones who cash in are those who put themselves at risk. If the price drops down to a reasonable taxed level, they can't undersell the regulated sellers.
High maximum sentences are primarily to help scare criminal defendants into accepting plea bargains. It would probably take extraordinary circumstances for it to ever be imposed.
That's not to say I agree with it, but the real issue is about giving prosecutors leverage in plea bargain negotiations.
On April 24 2011 03:28 A3iL3r0n wrote: I predict that the first state to fully embrace marijuana, i.e. developing laws for its sale and control, will receive a large economic boost. I'm from Minnesota and we have a large agricultural research university (U of M). I don't see why we haven't legalized the retailing of pot, with some additional laws barring minors from purchasing or consuming it, driving under the influence, etc, and then tax the shit out of it. This would also have the effect of reducing revenue to street gangs who sell weed to fund their other gang activities. The hard drugs market, as far as I know, has a much much smaller user base.
If you tax the shit of it, whats to stop from those gang bangers to sell more product to people who wanna buy it with ought all the taxation. Since its legal it doesn't matter where you procure it from.
I would still buy of some random dealer I know then a store because its cheaper. Plus its legal after the purchase you don't know where i got it from.
In Cali and Colorado pot is essentially legal at this point, so you get your doctors reference, and there are licensed, taxed retailers from which you can buy. Even when taxed heavily, the price is about the same as it is from your local pot-selling hippie ($40-50/eighth, about half that if you give them your grow rights) and when you find a good dispensary, you're assured that: 1) what you're smoking is quality, 2) your pot dealer will never be dry, and 3) there will be new edible creations for you to sample. The price will be about equal considering that pot currently has an "illegality tax," that is, dealers charge a premium to compensate for the risks they're taking. It wouldn't matter where you procured it, but in most circumstances, you'd probably want to buy from the store anyway.
On April 26 2011 06:34 Skoe420 wrote: Wow that is an outrage what the hell is going on in o.k??While all the other states are actually opening their eyes and finally allowing medical marijuana they go and do something like that??Just sounds like a way to make money off of people who are just trying to kick back and relax.
If a state did something like this but about making alcohol or their own cigs they would freak out about a penalty so harsh 2 to life?!?! What the hell?! Moon shine makers get off with a lesser sentence.All i can say is glad i dont live in o.k... i feel sorry for anyone who does.
I agree. I feel sorry for people who have to be surrounded by + Show Spoiler +
I live in Texas and we actually get some of Oklahoma's crazyness. Thank god I live in a big city..
Please don't throw us all in the same category. I could find crazy pictures of Texans, but I know they are rare, and not very common.
OT: I have no idea what they were thinking here, LIFE? Really?
This is the first I heard of this, and I live in Oklahoma....
Im glad I dont live in Oklahoma. I dont understand the motive for this though. WTF has hash done to that city that would make them put this on their list of priorities?
EPT
I doubt I'll ever see this plant legalized in my life time. The hate for it is so irrational as demonstrated by this law.
I can kind of see how a train of thought might be that if we can ban certain products that ruin lives, then people may become more productive. However, I don't think that trumps the inherent right and liberty we have to make our own decisions, besides the fact that conservatives aren't pushing to ban alcohol (which ruins plenty of lives as well) or other products. 
![[image loading]](http://www.waltsense.com/storage/articles/20090619_redneck-toilet.jpg)
