Legalize it!

[Mr. Shaman]

People who don't want to legalize weed are the same ones who claim to need a gun to protect themselves from government interfernce. You want to tell other people what to do, but you don't want anyone telling YOU what to do.

....And, on top of everything-else....they're naturally-paranoid.​

9/18/08

Conservatives Scare Easily​

"Deep-seated political differences aren’t simply moral and intellectual: They’re also biological.

In reflex tests of 46 political partisans, psychologists found that conservatives were more likely than liberals to be shocked by sudden threats.

Accompanying the physiological differences were deep differences on hot-button political issues: military expansion, the Iraq war, gun control, capital punishment, the Patriot act, warrantless searches, foreign aid, abortion rights, gay marriage, premarital sex and pornography.

Asked whether the findings imply a fearmongering strategy for conservatives, New York University psychologist David Amodio responded, "Yes. And some people believe that they are actively using this strategy."

The Bush administration has been accused of exploiting fears, though it’s hardly a new approach.

"The whole aim of practical politics," wrote journalist gadfly H.L. Mencken, "is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins."

 

[Katzndogz]

Grow some belladonna or foxglove, start giving the atropine or digitoxin to others and see how far the "plants are legal" argument gets you. It's just a plant!

 

[sfcalifornia]

At this point, drugs need to be put into free fall with non-using citizens taking whatever methods of self protection that they can. Treat it like the end of prohibition treated alcohol. Let communities decide for themselves whether they want their city to be filled with drug addicts or not and beef up patrols to put a lid on stray overs.

See here's the point you flatly refuse to acknowledge: the streets are already filled with drug addicts.

America has not succeeded in diminishing the supply of drugs at all. Drugs are easy to get.

Legalizing drugs may increase the supply but reality dictates if you wanted to do drugs, you already are regardless of whether they are legal or not.

Really katzndogz, you and the others who want to keep wasting money on fighting an obvious losing battle are going to have to wake up to reality on this one.

At this POINT, DRUGS are so READILY AVAILABLE that those who do not want to use drugs should form communities where they may treat users with any degree of protection they wish to take and let the users kill themselves off. This includes self defense laws that give extra protection against actions taken against someone under the influence. Denying medical care to users.

I notice there was another drug success this morning with the death of Mindy McCready.

Yeah, so?

Isn't this what I just said?

Use drugs or don't. Your choice. Kill yourself or don't. Up to you.

But don't waste taxpayer money fighting a war we have not won for 70 years and will never win in the future.

And don't you mean McReady's death was a suicide success?

 

[sfcalifornia]

Grow some belladonna or foxglove, start giving the atropine or digitoxin to others and see how far the "plants are legal" argument gets you. It's just a plant!

Child, please.

We're talking about self-inducement here. Not poisoning others.

If you want to commit suicide through poisoning yourself, it's your choice.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

At this POINT, DRUGS are so READILY AVAILABLE that those who do not want to use drugs should form communities where they may treat users with any degree of protection they wish to take and let the users kill themselves off. This includes self defense laws that give extra protection against actions taken against someone under the influence. Denying medical care to users.

I notice there was another drug success this morning with the death of Mindy McCready.

Putting pot smokers with hard drug users is ridiculous and dangerous. Look at the Dutch example.

Yes look at the Dutch example and why they started cracking down. If we looked at the Dutch example, we would understand they are trying to make right now, the wrong they did in the past.

Yeah....you're wrong, again....as usual....​

November 21, 2012

Amsterdam Ditches Controversial Law​

"Dutch cities are to decide themselves whether to bar foreign drug tourists from so-called coffee-shops, after the government scrapped its unpopular "weed pass" law.

The move will allow Amsterdam to keep pulling in millions of foreign soft-drug users, while allowing border towns to clamp down on crime related to drug tourism.

"The best way of seeing which measures are effective is at local level," Dutch Justice Minister Ivo Opstelten said in a letter sent to parliament late Monday.

"We are abandoning the 'cannabis card'," he added.

The Dutch government announced a year ago that it was introducing a law to ban foreigners from entering dope-dealing "coffee-shops", also forcing local smokers to show identification and register in a database.

Called the "cannabis card" law, it rolled out in May in three southern Dutch provinces that attract many Belgian, French and German drug tourists.

The move was aimed at curbing drug-related phenomena like late-night revelry, traffic jams and dealing in hard drugs.

But its critics said it simply pushed drug peddling onto the streets of southern cities like Maastricht and Tilburg and led to a rise in crime."

 

[sfcalifornia]

Sorry Mr Sherman, I tend to lose patients at times with totally duped and oblivious people as yourself who think they know this issue.
I will try to be more understanding.

I haven't had time to read the whole thread so I apologize if you've already listed the qualifications which make you think you know this issue so well. Perhaps you can refer me to this post? How is it you know so much about the subject and Mr. Shaman doesn't?

I will attempt to list my 'qualifications' to speak on this subject if necessary (though I doubt you would have the patients to read it in its entirety) but for now can we just try using common sense?
The first thing that should always be discussed when addressing this issue is the simple question that in historical order naturally comes first:
Does gov have authority to outlaw you planting a seed? (on your own land for your own use/home manufacture of necessities etc)
Does gov have authority to outlaw a plant in general?
Only after those two questions are fully vetted is there any room for further discussion in whatever direction.
In other words we should necessarily be having a discussion about your fundamental inherent self-evident rights before we finally surrender or supplant those rights with the continuance of 'prohibition' under the heading of 'legalization'.
If more people saw this issue for the obvious issue it is then more people would probably have common ground to agree on rather than the endless tale chasing 'debate' about 'good or bad' plant etc which is exactly the 'debate' our corporate gov needs us to be having in their effort to bring forward the next stage/phase of prohibition.
This temporary test law that was imposed in Iraq during the beginning stages of 'occupation' is a good example of what Monsanto et al intends for us here in the USA asap and what better way to introduce such measures than with a plant like cannabis which is already illegal?
http://www.trade.gov/static/iraq_memo81.pdf

Iraq

The evolution and solidification of ultimate power and control is what we advocate if we advocate for 'legalization' not to mention (as most dont) the furtherance of the death of 'certain rights held by we the people'.
Running short on time at the moment but much more to be said so I'll be back later.

ps...you might check out these threads for more on the fundamental aspect of this if you have time:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/277445-what-does-the-9th-amendment-mean-to-you.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/garde...st-needed-plant-missing-from-your-garden.html

I waded through this whole post and seriously dude, I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about here.

Simple question: do you think people should be able to get high or not if they want to?

And by the way, opinions aren't qualifications.

 

[Katzndogz]

I haven't had time to read the whole thread so I apologize if you've already listed the qualifications which make you think you know this issue so well. Perhaps you can refer me to this post? How is it you know so much about the subject and Mr. Shaman doesn't?

I will attempt to list my 'qualifications' to speak on this subject if necessary (though I doubt you would have the patients to read it in its entirety) but for now can we just try using common sense?
The first thing that should always be discussed when addressing this issue is the simple question that in historical order naturally comes first:
Does gov have authority to outlaw you planting a seed? (on your own land for your own use/home manufacture of necessities etc)
Does gov have authority to outlaw a plant in general?
Only after those two questions are fully vetted is there any room for further discussion in whatever direction.
In other words we should necessarily be having a discussion about your fundamental inherent self-evident rights before we finally surrender or supplant those rights with the continuance of 'prohibition' under the heading of 'legalization'.
If more people saw this issue for the obvious issue it is then more people would probably have common ground to agree on rather than the endless tale chasing 'debate' about 'good or bad' plant etc which is exactly the 'debate' our corporate gov needs us to be having in their effort to bring forward the next stage/phase of prohibition.
This temporary test law that was imposed in Iraq during the beginning stages of 'occupation' is a good example of what Monsanto et al intends for us here in the USA asap and what better way to introduce such measures than with a plant like cannabis which is already illegal?
http://www.trade.gov/static/iraq_memo81.pdf

Iraq

The evolution and solidification of ultimate power and control is what we advocate if we advocate for 'legalization' not to mention (as most dont) the furtherance of the death of 'certain rights held by we the people'.
Running short on time at the moment but much more to be said so I'll be back later.

ps...you might check out these threads for more on the fundamental aspect of this if you have time:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/277445-what-does-the-9th-amendment-mean-to-you.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/garde...st-needed-plant-missing-from-your-garden.html

I waded through this whole post and seriously dude, I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about here.

Simple question: do you think people should be able to get high or not if they want to?

And by the way, opinions aren't qualifications.

There you have the problem. When you have a large percentage of a people who cannot get through the day without being high, that civilization has a MAJOR problem. It will not be able to function. Either it will become chaotic, or a non using force will arise to subjegate the rest using drugs as a means of command and control.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I will attempt to list my 'qualifications' to speak on this subject if necessary (though I doubt you would have the patients to read it in its entirety) but for now can we just try using common sense?
The first thing that should always be discussed when addressing this issue is the simple question that in historical order naturally comes first:
Does gov have authority to outlaw you planting a seed? (on your own land for your own use/home manufacture of necessities etc)
Does gov have authority to outlaw a plant in general?
Only after those two questions are fully vetted is there any room for further discussion in whatever direction.
In other words we should necessarily be having a discussion about your fundamental inherent self-evident rights before we finally surrender or supplant those rights with the continuance of 'prohibition' under the heading of 'legalization'.
If more people saw this issue for the obvious issue it is then more people would probably have common ground to agree on rather than the endless tale chasing 'debate' about 'good or bad' plant etc which is exactly the 'debate' our corporate gov needs us to be having in their effort to bring forward the next stage/phase of prohibition.
This temporary test law that was imposed in Iraq during the beginning stages of 'occupation' is a good example of what Monsanto et al intends for us here in the USA asap and what better way to introduce such measures than with a plant like cannabis which is already illegal?
http://www.trade.gov/static/iraq_memo81.pdf

Iraq

The evolution and solidification of ultimate power and control is what we advocate if we advocate for 'legalization' not to mention (as most dont) the furtherance of the death of 'certain rights held by we the people'.
Running short on time at the moment but much more to be said so I'll be back later.

ps...you might check out these threads for more on the fundamental aspect of this if you have time:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/277445-what-does-the-9th-amendment-mean-to-you.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/garde...st-needed-plant-missing-from-your-garden.html

I waded through this whole post and seriously dude, I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about here.

Simple question: do you think people should be able to get high or not if they want to?

And by the way, opinions aren't qualifications.

There you have the problem. When you have a large percentage of a people who cannot get through the day without being high, that civilization has a MAJOR problem. It will not be able to function. Either it will become chaotic, or a non using force will arise to subjegate the rest using drugs as a means of command and control.

You "conservatives" need to put a little-more effort into quelling your fascistic-fantasies, and spend a little-less time on worrying about other people enjoying their Life, much-more than you can mange. ​

 

[DNAprotection]

I haven't had time to read the whole thread so I apologize if you've already listed the qualifications which make you think you know this issue so well. Perhaps you can refer me to this post? How is it you know so much about the subject and Mr. Shaman doesn't?

I will attempt to list my 'qualifications' to speak on this subject if necessary (though I doubt you would have the patients to read it in its entirety) but for now can we just try using common sense?
The first thing that should always be discussed when addressing this issue is the simple question that in historical order naturally comes first:
Does gov have authority to outlaw you planting a seed? (on your own land for your own use/home manufacture of necessities etc)
Does gov have authority to outlaw a plant in general?
Only after those two questions are fully vetted is there any room for further discussion in whatever direction.
In other words we should necessarily be having a discussion about your fundamental inherent self-evident rights before we finally surrender or supplant those rights with the continuance of 'prohibition' under the heading of 'legalization'.
If more people saw this issue for the obvious issue it is then more people would probably have common ground to agree on rather than the endless tale chasing 'debate' about 'good or bad' plant etc which is exactly the 'debate' our corporate gov needs us to be having in their effort to bring forward the next stage/phase of prohibition.
This temporary test law that was imposed in Iraq during the beginning stages of 'occupation' is a good example of what Monsanto et al intends for us here in the USA asap and what better way to introduce such measures than with a plant like cannabis which is already illegal?
http://www.trade.gov/static/iraq_memo81.pdf

Iraq

The evolution and solidification of ultimate power and control is what we advocate if we advocate for 'legalization' not to mention (as most dont) the furtherance of the death of 'certain rights held by we the people'.
Running short on time at the moment but much more to be said so I'll be back later.

ps...you might check out these threads for more on the fundamental aspect of this if you have time:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/277445-what-does-the-9th-amendment-mean-to-you.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/garde...st-needed-plant-missing-from-your-garden.html

I waded through this whole post and seriously dude, I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about here.

Simple question: do you think people should be able to get high or not if they want to?

And by the way, opinions aren't qualifications.

Who stated 'qualifications' yet?
I was stating opinion and you should be able to at least distinguish the difference.
"do you think people should be able to get high or not if they want to?"
Simple answer is of course, but such a question should only be asked if the simple questions I posed are answered first and you have wholly avoiding even addressing such and so it makes your 'debate' merely status quot which wholly serves only an anti freedom view.

 

[DNAprotection]

I waded through this whole post and seriously dude, I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about here.

Simple question: do you think people should be able to get high or not if they want to?

And by the way, opinions aren't qualifications.

There you have the problem. When you have a large percentage of a people who cannot get through the day without being high, that civilization has a MAJOR problem. It will not be able to function. Either it will become chaotic, or a non using force will arise to subjegate the rest using drugs as a means of command and control.

You "conservatives" need to put a little-more effort into quelling your fascistic-fantasies, and spend a little-less time on worrying about other people enjoying their Life, much-more than you can mange. ​

Bro your post here seems right on par with most of the other ironically misinformed posts I've seen in this thread whether pro or anti cannabis.

 

[sfcalifornia]

I will attempt to list my 'qualifications' to speak on this subject if necessary (though I doubt you would have the patients to read it in its entirety) but for now can we just try using common sense?
The first thing that should always be discussed when addressing this issue is the simple question that in historical order naturally comes first:
Does gov have authority to outlaw you planting a seed? (on your own land for your own use/home manufacture of necessities etc)
Does gov have authority to outlaw a plant in general?
Only after those two questions are fully vetted is there any room for further discussion in whatever direction.
In other words we should necessarily be having a discussion about your fundamental inherent self-evident rights before we finally surrender or supplant those rights with the continuance of 'prohibition' under the heading of 'legalization'.
If more people saw this issue for the obvious issue it is then more people would probably have common ground to agree on rather than the endless tale chasing 'debate' about 'good or bad' plant etc which is exactly the 'debate' our corporate gov needs us to be having in their effort to bring forward the next stage/phase of prohibition.
This temporary test law that was imposed in Iraq during the beginning stages of 'occupation' is a good example of what Monsanto et al intends for us here in the USA asap and what better way to introduce such measures than with a plant like cannabis which is already illegal?
http://www.trade.gov/static/iraq_memo81.pdf

Iraq

The evolution and solidification of ultimate power and control is what we advocate if we advocate for 'legalization' not to mention (as most dont) the furtherance of the death of 'certain rights held by we the people'.
Running short on time at the moment but much more to be said so I'll be back later.

ps...you might check out these threads for more on the fundamental aspect of this if you have time:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/277445-what-does-the-9th-amendment-mean-to-you.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/garde...st-needed-plant-missing-from-your-garden.html

I waded through this whole post and seriously dude, I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about here.

Simple question: do you think people should be able to get high or not if they want to?

And by the way, opinions aren't qualifications.

Who stated 'qualifications' yet?
I was stating opinion and you should be able to at least distinguish the difference.
"do you think people should be able to get high or not if they want to?"
Simple answer is of course, but such a question should only be asked if the simple questions I posed are answered first and you have wholly avoiding even addressing such and so it makes your 'debate' merely status quot which wholly serves only an anti freedom view.

Uh... well, I think I am able to distinguish the difference between opinion and qualifications since I just pointed out to you that you were stating opinion and not qualifications....

I'm just wondering why you think you're so qualified on the subject while Mr. Shaman is not since you so emphatically stated this.

Look, in any event, I get the impression we are on the same page here.

I hate Monsanto too, hemp is a miracle plant and should have been legalized decades ago and if people want to get high they should be allowed to in whatever degree they feel necessary, diverting taxpayer money in education and rehabilitation instead of throwing it away on a proven inconsequential war against it. If I can speak for Mr. Shaman, I'm certain he feels the same way.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

You can't reason with potheads. You can only feed them Cheetos and hope they shut up.

No reason to put them in jail, though.

 

[initforme]

Are there those on the forum who believe that we are winning the drug war? If you are against gov't interfering in your life then how can you be for anti legalization? Jus wondering

 

[Dubya]

Are there those on the forum who believe that we are winning the drug war? If you are against gov't interfering in your life then how can you be for anti legalization? Jus wondering

I can see legalizing pot and decriminalizing cocaine in small amounts, but I don't think legalizing it would change much about the black market. The same drug cartels would control it. I think nations could destroy the plantation source in South America. Heroin is a different story, because poppies can be grown in many places. Making opium is labor intensive.

 

[Flopper]

We incarcerate more people than any other nation including China which is 4 times our size. One third of the people in prison are in there for offenses with no identifiable victim, primarily drug offenses. We waste huge amounts of money on investigations, trials, and imprisonment of marijuana users and dealers yet during the last 10 years marijuana usage has risen significantly.

We need to stop wasting law enforcement resources and prison spaces on a victim-less crime that most believe should not even be a crime.

 

[sfcalifornia]

You can't reason with potheads. You can only feed them Cheetos and hope they shut up.

No reason to put them in jail, though.

Sounds reasonable.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I support decriminalizing it, but I don't want the government trying to get revenue from it. Keep it cheap, but illegal to export.

Not a prob!!

You know of any home-brewers (or home-made wine-makers) that are paying any taxes?​

You shouldn't have to pay taxes for your own consumption. All the Italian farmers had their own vineyards where I grew up.

I don't think legalizing crack would change that industry much. I don't think it could be grown outside the tropics, so Hawaii would be about it. I could see decriminalizing amounts for personal consumption and pushing for treatment programs, but it's very addicting. It wouldn't be wise to encourage it's use.

I suspect coca could be grown ANYWHERE with some research & equipment! Just grow it inside under lamps.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I will attempt to list my 'qualifications' to speak on this subject if necessary (though I doubt you would have the patients to read it in its entirety) but for now can we just try using common sense?
The first thing that should always be discussed when addressing this issue is the simple question that in historical order naturally comes first:
Does gov have authority to outlaw you planting a seed? (on your own land for your own use/home manufacture of necessities etc)
Does gov have authority to outlaw a plant in general?
Only after those two questions are fully vetted is there any room for further discussion in whatever direction.
In other words we should necessarily be having a discussion about your fundamental inherent self-evident rights before we finally surrender or supplant those rights with the continuance of 'prohibition' under the heading of 'legalization'.
If more people saw this issue for the obvious issue it is then more people would probably have common ground to agree on rather than the endless tale chasing 'debate' about 'good or bad' plant etc which is exactly the 'debate' our corporate gov needs us to be having in their effort to bring forward the next stage/phase of prohibition.
This temporary test law that was imposed in Iraq during the beginning stages of 'occupation' is a good example of what Monsanto et al intends for us here in the USA asap and what better way to introduce such measures than with a plant like cannabis which is already illegal?
http://www.trade.gov/static/iraq_memo81.pdf

Iraq

The evolution and solidification of ultimate power and control is what we advocate if we advocate for 'legalization' not to mention (as most dont) the furtherance of the death of 'certain rights held by we the people'.
Running short on time at the moment but much more to be said so I'll be back later.

ps...you might check out these threads for more on the fundamental aspect of this if you have time:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/277445-what-does-the-9th-amendment-mean-to-you.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/garde...st-needed-plant-missing-from-your-garden.html

I waded through this whole post and seriously dude, I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about here.

Simple question: do you think people should be able to get high or not if they want to?

And by the way, opinions aren't qualifications.

There you have the problem. When you have a large percentage of a people who cannot get through the day without being high, that civilization has a MAJOR problem. It will not be able to function. Either it will become chaotic, or a non using force will arise to subjegate the rest using drugs as a means of command and control.

So...when do you start the campaign to ban coffee?

 

[Katzndogz]

We incarcerate more people than any other nation including China which is 4 times our size. One third of the people in prison are in there for offenses with no identifiable victim, primarily drugs. We waste huge amounts of money on investigations, trials, and imprisonment of marijuana users and dealer yet during the last 10 years marijuana usage has risen significantly.

We need to stop waste law enforcement resources and prison spaces on a victim-less crime that most believe should not even be a crime.

You wouldn't get an argument from me if we treated druggies like they do in China. No prison. Work camp instead. No trial. It's a medical problem. No need for a trial if they test positive. Send the illegals out of the fields. Send druggies there as rehabilitation. Fresh air and sunshine. I would agree to that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm completely pro-legalization of marijuana. The gov. could step in and sell pot making huge amounts of rev. in taxes, which can help pay off our debt. We'll also save millions by not having to fight the drug dealers and lock up men and women who sell the drug. Pot is medically useful and much less dangerous than alcohol.

Why haven't we legalized this drug yet?

We already have some legal drugs that people can't deal with responsibly. Don't you think that's enough?

Nope.