Proud Potheads Pushback: Public Perceives Problem "Stoners"

[CID1990]

Cmon Tman.

Booze produces these same effects, and not just with trailer trash.

You know you're making a specious case when you force me into a clichéd argument- but in this case it's true. Pot is no worse (and no better) than booze. Certainly it is not worth the cost of enforcing the narcotics laws aimed at it.

Plus, think of all the legalize it people who are going to scream bloody murder when they finally get their way and have to pay 30 bucks for a pack of mentholated Marijaneboros. The entertainment value in that alone is worth mainstreaming the stuff.

[houndawg]

Cmon Tman.

Booze produces these same effects, and not just with trailer trash.

You know you're making a specious case when you force me into a clichéd argument- but in this case it's true. Pot is no worse (and no better) than booze. Certainly it is not worth the cost of enforcing the narcotics laws aimed at it.

Plus, think of all the legalize it people who are going to scream bloody murder when they finally get their way and have to pay 30 bucks for a pack of mentholated Marijaneboros. The entertainment value in that alone is worth mainstreaming the stuff.

Doubtful. Way too easy to grow your own.

I like keeping it illegal. It carries a whole parallel economy that the guvmint isn't controlling. Great alternative for raising a large amount of money without having to deal with a bank.

[D1B]

Cmon Tman.

Booze produces these same effects, and not just with trailer trash.

You know you're making a specious case when you force me into a clichéd argument- but in this case it's true. Pot is no worse (and no better) than booze. Certainly it is not worth the cost of enforcing the narcotics laws aimed at it.

Plus, think of all the legalize it people who are going to scream bloody murder when they finally get their way and have to pay 30 bucks for a pack of mentholated Marijaneboros. The entertainment value in that alone is worth mainstreaming the stuff.

LSD1990 doesn't understand how pot works.

[houndawg]

Cmon Tman.

Booze produces these same effects, and not just with trailer trash.

You know you're making a specious case when you force me into a clichéd argument- but in this case it's true. Pot is no worse (and no better) than booze. Certainly it is not worth the cost of enforcing the narcotics laws aimed at it.

Plus, think of all the legalize it people who are going to scream bloody murder when they finally get their way and have to pay 30 bucks for a pack of mentholated Marijaneboros. The entertainment value in that alone is worth mainstreaming the stuff.

LSD1990 doesn't understand how pot works.

Bullshit. He invented it.

[CID1990]

Cmon Tman.

Booze produces these same effects, and not just with trailer trash.

You know you're making a specious case when you force me into a clichéd argument- but in this case it's true. Pot is no worse (and no better) than booze. Certainly it is not worth the cost of enforcing the narcotics laws aimed at it.

Plus, think of all the legalize it people who are going to scream bloody murder when they finally get their way and have to pay 30 bucks for a pack of mentholated Marijaneboros. The entertainment value in that alone is worth mainstreaming the stuff.

LSD1990 doesn't understand how pot works.

You're right, Cheech- I don't know much about pot outside of the fact that it's physiological effects don't make it worthy of being illegal.

But I did spend my days before I left the nest growing up on a tobacco farm in NC and I know the Byzantine maze of laws and regulations that determine how much you can grow for personal consumption and how much you can sell

And if you or anybody else thinks that the moment pot is decriminalized that RJR and,UST and Lorillard won't have a bunch of local, state and national politicians immediately in their pockets---- enacting the SAME set of regulations governing its production....

Well then you've been drinking way too much bong water

[D1B]

LSD1990 doesn't understand how pot works.

You're right, Cheech- I don't know much about pot outside of the fact that it's physiological effects don't make it worthy of being illegal.

But I did spend my days before I left the nest growing up on a tobacco farm in NC and I know the Byzantine maze of laws and regulations that determine how much you can grow for personal consumption and how much you can sell

And if you or anybody else thinks that the moment pot is decriminalized that RJR and,UST and Lorillard won't have a bunch of local, state and national politicians immediately in their pockets---- enacting the SAME set of regulations governing its production....

Well then you've been drinking way too much bong water

Fair enough.

[travelinman67]

LSD1990 doesn't understand how pot works.

You're right, Cheech- I don't know much about pot outside of the fact that it's physiological effects don't make it worthy of being illegal.

But I did spend my days before I left the nest growing up on a tobacco farm in NC and I know the Byzantine maze of laws and regulations that determine how much you can grow for personal consumption and how much you can sell

And if you or anybody else thinks that the moment pot is decriminalized that RJR and,UST and Lorillard won't have a bunch of local, state and national politicians immediately in their pockets---- enacting the SAME set of regulations governing its production....

Well then you've been drinking way too much bong water

So, you argue if there's a capitalist market opportunity for big business, then a product should be made legally available?

In all fairness, if heroin were legalized and the production regulated for qualitative/quantitative strength, there would be far fewer overdoses, and prices would drop. I'm sure Bayer, Johnson and Johnson, etc, would step up for market share....so, let's legalize opiates!!

[kalm]

You're right, Cheech- I don't know much about pot outside of the fact that it's physiological effects don't make it worthy of being illegal.

But I did spend my days before I left the nest growing up on a tobacco farm in NC and I know the Byzantine maze of laws and regulations that determine how much you can grow for personal consumption and how much you can sell

And if you or anybody else thinks that the moment pot is decriminalized that RJR and,UST and Lorillard won't have a bunch of local, state and national politicians immediately in their pockets---- enacting the SAME set of regulations governing its production....

Well then you've been drinking way too much bong water

So, you argue if there's a capitalist market opportunity for big business, then a product should be made legally available?

In all fairness, if heroin were legalized and the production regulated for qualitative/quantitative strength, there would be far fewer overdoses, and prices would drop. I'm sure Bayer, Johnson and Johnson, etc, would step up for market share....so, let's legalize opiates!!

Abuse and LE spending would go down. It's a health issue. Legalize everything and treat it as such.

[Chizzang]

You're right, Cheech- I don't know much about pot outside of the fact that it's physiological effects don't make it worthy of being illegal.

But I did spend my days before I left the nest growing up on a tobacco farm in NC and I know the Byzantine maze of laws and regulations that determine how much you can grow for personal consumption and how much you can sell

And if you or anybody else thinks that the moment pot is decriminalized that RJR and,UST and Lorillard won't have a bunch of local, state and national politicians immediately in their pockets---- enacting the SAME set of regulations governing its production....

Well then you've been drinking way too much bong water

So, you argue if there's a capitalist market opportunity for big business, then a product should be made legally available?

In all fairness, if heroin were legalized and the production regulated for qualitative/quantitative strength, there would be far fewer overdoses, and prices would drop. I'm sure Bayer, Johnson and Johnson, etc, would step up for market share....so, let's legalize opiates!!

Why wouldn't we..?
Guns are far more dangerous and we enthusiastically embrace them


A drug never killed anybody - people kill

[travelinman67]

So, you argue if there's a capitalist market opportunity for big business, then a product should be made legally available?

In all fairness, if heroin were legalized and the production regulated for qualitative/quantitative strength, there would be far fewer overdoses, and prices would drop. I'm sure Bayer, Johnson and Johnson, etc, would step up for market share....so, let's legalize opiates!!

Why wouldn't we..?
Guns are far more dangerous and we enthusiastically embrace them


A drug never killed anybody - people kill

Your dumbest post yet.

[travelinman67]

So, you argue if there's a capitalist market opportunity for big business, then a product should be made legally available?

In all fairness, if heroin were legalized and the production regulated for qualitative/quantitative strength, there would be far fewer overdoses, and prices would drop. I'm sure Bayer, Johnson and Johnson, etc, would step up for market share....so, let's legalize opiates!!

Abuse and LE spending would go down...

And you determined this how?

[Chizzang]

Why wouldn't we..?
Guns are far more dangerous and we enthusiastically embrace them


A drug never killed anybody - people kill

Your dumbest post yet.

Really..?
Why

Dumbest because you disagree with it
so explain why we all need to be "nanny stated" and saved from dangerous things..?
Why does one dangerous thing deserve Nanny State and the other deserve complete FREEDOM...

Explain very carefully T-Man
(this is a trap)

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Your dumbest post yet.

Really..?
Why

Dumbest because you disagree with it
so explain why we all need to be "nanny stated" and saved from dangerous things..?
Why does one dangerous thing deserve Nanny State and the other deserve complete FREEDOM...

Explain very carefully T-Man
(this is a trap)

FWIW, I didn't think your last one was dumb at all either. I hope that gives you the strength to carry on.

[kalm]

Your dumbest post yet.

Really..?
Why

Dumbest because you disagree with it
so explain why we all need to be "nanny stated" and saved from dangerous things..?
Why does one dangerous thing deserve Nanny State and the other deserve complete FREEDOM...

Explain very carefully T-Man
(this is a trap)

I think this is why CID struggles at being a Republican.

[travelinman67]

Your dumbest post yet.

Really..?
Why

Dumbest because you disagree with it
so explain why we all need to be "nanny stated" and saved from dangerous things..?
Why does one dangerous thing deserve Nanny State and the other deserve complete FREEDOM...

Explain very carefully T-Man
(this is a trap)

OK, I'll waste time and bite.

Gun possession/access is a method to protect democracy. Period.

Legalization of drugs for recreational reasons would ensure increasing numbers of abusers/addicts...for no other purpose than to provide Americans a form of (once, again) recreational chemical distraction.

And, for the record, neither guns or drugs "kill". The idiots who improperly use either, are "killers", and ultimately an people do not need devices to kill; they can kill using their hands and feet.

Okey doke, Dr. Hippie...sink me with your genius.

[travelinman67]

Really..?
Why

Dumbest because you disagree with it
so explain why we all need to be "nanny stated" and saved from dangerous things..?
Why does one dangerous thing deserve Nanny State and the other deserve complete FREEDOM...

Explain very carefully T-Man
(this is a trap)

I think this is why CID struggles at being a Republican.

This is not a Republican/Democrat issue, Hildabeastboy.

[Chizzang]

OK, I'll waste time and bite.
Gun possession/access is a method to protect democracy. Period.

Legalization of drugs for recreational reasons would ensure increasing numbers of abusers/addicts...for no other purpose than to provide Americans a form of (once, again) recreational chemical distraction.

And, for the record, neither guns or drugs "kill". The idiots who improperly use either, are "killers", and ultimately an people do not need devices to kill; they can kill using their hands and feet.

Okey doke, Dr. Hippie...sink me with your genius.

So you make two points:
1) One dangerous freedom does not deserve another - because guns are for the defense of democracy
2) legal access to drugs will increase the number of addicts

Those ^ are your two points
So if I were able to show that those points are irrelevant in one case and incorrect in the other
would you change your opinion..?

[kalm]

I think this is why CID struggles at being a Republican.

This is not a Republican/Democrat issue, Hildabeastboy.

Indeed. Nanny statism transcends parties just like federal spending. You're catching on!

Oh...and if Hilary had a R in front of her name, you'd be spanking it to that old gray snatch nightly.

[travelinman67]

OK, I'll waste time and bite.
Gun possession/access is a method to protect democracy. Period.

Legalization of drugs for recreational reasons would ensure increasing numbers of abusers/addicts...for no other purpose than to provide Americans a form of (once, again) recreational chemical distraction.

And, for the record, neither guns or drugs "kill". The idiots who improperly use either, are "killers", and ultimately an people do not need devices to kill; they can kill using their hands and feet.

Okey doke, Dr. Hippie...sink I me with your genius.

So you make two points:
1) One dangerous freedom does not deserve another - because guns are for the defense of democracy
2) legal access to drugs will increase the number of addicts

Those ^ are your two points
So if I were able to show that those points are irrelevant in one case and incorrect in the other
would you change your opinion..?

First...

Equating a constitutional protection to ensure democracy, a "freedom", as you benignly describe it, with the "freedom" to ingest chemicals for personal entertainment, is (I'll try to be polite), nonsense.

You have failed in your argument by attempting to include "guns" as your foil to mitigate the dangers of drug abuse. Strikingly, you might have made more sense by selecting another device of destruction, say, hunting knives, which have no constitutional purpose, yet is responsible for many deaths annually.

As for your second implication, I'm afraid you would be wasting time to Kalmishly argue that access to recreational drugs DOESN'T increase abuse/addiction. I studied this exact issue EXTENSIVELY in the 80's, and am intransigent in my conclusion.

...so, no, I wouldn't change my opinion.

[travelinman67]

This is not a Republican/Democrat issue, Hildabeastboy.

Indeed. Nanny statism transcends parties just like federal spending. You're catching on!

Oh...and if Hilary had a R in front of her name, you'd be spanking it to that old gray snatch nightly.

Wrong. You absolutely do not understand my motivation.

It's ALWAYS about integrity and character. ALWAYS!

Hildabeast is bereft of character. It is a shameful pock on the body politic that ANY voters are supporting this demagogue. She is plainly attempting to build a base by pandering to single issue voters. Gays, feminists, immigrants, low info middle-aged women...sadly, those single issue voters have far better options, but have been brainwashed into believing candidates followed by a "D", are their ONLY choice. In the end, they wind up with an ineffective candidate, who is only running for narcissistic self-enrichment.

[kalm]

Indeed. Nanny statism transcends parties just like federal spending. You're catching on!

Oh...and if Hilary had a R in front of her name, you'd be spanking it to that old gray snatch nightly.

Wrong. You absolutely do not understand my motivation.

It's ALWAYS about integrity and character. ALWAYS!

Hildabeast is bereft of character. It is a shameful pock on the body politic that ANY voters are supporting this demagogue. She is plainly attempting to build a base by pandering to single issue voters. Gays, feminists, immigrants, low info middle-aged women...sadly, those single issue voters have far better options, but have been brainwashed into believing candidates followed by a "D", are their ONLY choice. In the end, they wind up with an ineffective candidate, who is only running for narcissistic self-enrichment.

I pretty much agree with your last paragraph. And?

[kalm]

So you make two points:
1) One dangerous freedom does not deserve another - because guns are for the defense of democracy
2) legal access to drugs will increase the number of addicts

Those ^ are your two points
So if I were able to show that those points are irrelevant in one case and incorrect in the other
would you change your opinion..?

First...

Equating a constitutional protection to ensure democracy, a "freedom", as you benignly describe it, with the "freedom" to ingest chemicals for personal entertainment, is (I'll try to be polite), nonsense.

You have failed in your argument by attempting to include "guns" as your foil to mitigate the dangers of drug abuse. Strikingly, you might have made more sense by selecting another device of destruction, say, hunting knives, which have no constitutional purpose, yet is responsible for many deaths annually.

As for your second implication, I'm afraid you would be wasting time to Kalmishly argue that access to recreational drugs DOESN'T increase abuse/addiction. I studied this exact issue EXTENSIVELY in the 80's, and am intransigent in my conclusion.

...so, no, I wouldn't change my opinion.

Dr. Dean Adell used to cite 80's studies where they'd line up heroine addicts and alcoholics, ask them questions, and a panel of Dr's couldn't tell the difference.

Also...Portugal.

[travelinman67]

First...

Equating a constitutional protection to ensure democracy, a "freedom", as you benignly describe it, with the "freedom" to ingest chemicals for personal entertainment, is (I'll try to be polite), nonsense.

You have failed in your argument by attempting to include "guns" as your foil to mitigate the dangers of drug abuse. Strikingly, you might have made more sense by selecting another device of destruction, say, hunting knives, which have no constitutional purpose, yet is responsible for many deaths annually.

As for your second implication, I'm afraid you would be wasting time to Kalmishly argue that access to recreational drugs DOESN'T increase abuse/addiction. I studied this exact issue EXTENSIVELY in the 80's, and am intransigent in my conclusion.

...so, no, I wouldn't change my opinion.

Dr. Dean Adell used to cite 80's studies where they'd line up heroine addicts and alcoholics, ask them questions, and a panel of Dr's couldn't tell the difference.

Also...Portugal.

Heroine addicts?

Kate Hepburn fan club?



And, to suggest that alcohol and opiates have equivalent physiological effects shows you have no understanding of commonly abused substances.

http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_03/ ... roine.html

Read, learn.

[CID1990]

You're right, Cheech- I don't know much about pot outside of the fact that it's physiological effects don't make it worthy of being illegal.

But I did spend my days before I left the nest growing up on a tobacco farm in NC and I know the Byzantine maze of laws and regulations that determine how much you can grow for personal consumption and how much you can sell

And if you or anybody else thinks that the moment pot is decriminalized that RJR and,UST and Lorillard won't have a bunch of local, state and national politicians immediately in their pockets---- enacting the SAME set of regulations governing its production....

Well then you've been drinking way too much bong water

So, you argue if there's a capitalist market opportunity for big business, then a product should be made legally available?

No, I'm not making that argument at all. Not sure how you drew a line from what I'm saying to a capitalist justification for legalizing dope.

That said I do support full decriminalization of ALL narcotics and I don't need any stronger justification than personal liberty.

[Chizzang]

So, you argue if there's a capitalist market opportunity for big business, then a product should be made legally available?

No, I'm not making that argument at all. Not sure how you drew a line from what I'm saying to a capitalist justification for legalizing dope.

That said I do support full decriminalization of ALL narcotics and I don't need any stronger justification than personal liberty.

Personal Liberty be damned
T-man likes HIS version of the Nanny State
But rejects the progressive version of the Nanny State

6 degrees of separation is good enough when you close your eyes