Why are we not talking about [Legal Marijuana] in multiple states and now for Vets?

2456768

Posts

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited January 2014
    How do you know its not?

    Burden of proof should fall on you since youre arguing otherwise and just discredited pretty much any source I could post as a media conspiracy

    It is not up to anyone on this forum to prove a negative.

    If someone wants to claim the majority of people who want marijuana legalized are a caricature then it's up to them to prove that claim.

    Quid on
    joshofalltradesKristmas KthulhuGennenalyse Ruebenh3nduKamarLord_Asmodeus
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Your classic caricature of a stoner isn't really valid anymore.

    It's been years since I've seen a straight up long haired bearded hippy burnout stoner.

    TL DR
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    And really that caricature was likely never valid, and it's only appeared to recede as more 'upstanding' individuals were comfortable speaking openly about their marijuana use.

    For reference, here's the first guy to purchase in Colorado under the new law. Notice the collared shirt and lack of dreadlocks.
    KZPBn9M.jpg

  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    We aren't talking about it because the number one goal of legalization IMO was to get potheads to shut the fuck about the only thing they will ever talk about.
    As briefly pointed out above, the War on Drugs is a horrifically prejudiced policy with disastrous effects on society. Ending marijuana prohibition is not in and of itself a sufficient change in policy, but is a significant step forward.

    People who are dismissive of this issue are universally not minorities in Texas (or most other southern states).

    Neither are the "legalize pot man!" brigade.

    Some of us actually think the drug war is an important thing to discuss and criticize. I find it kind of odd that this particular discussion invites apparently acceptably dismissive stereotypes towards people who find this policy damaging in the same forum where pretty much any other stereotype will get you dogpiled, and rightly so.

    Some of us don't get into this for the whole counterculture aspect. Some of us have personal experience with relatives wasting away because their state doesn't allow them to take something that would help. Some of us have been imprisoned for one stupid decision which they haven't repeated since.

    Idiot stoner slacker losers are not the only people who are invested in ending prohibition and it's incredibly goose-like to insinuate that those people are the biggest or even most vocal part of that group.

    I'm only high on bureaucracy and tax-revenue.

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    I'm a little too busy staring at his terrifyingly in-human facial expression to look at his shirt or hair.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    QuidJuliusCaptain CarrotKing RiptorRhan9LostNinjaArdolAresProphetTommattThe EnderRear Admiral ChocoshrykeKristmas KthulhuMichaelLCRchanenCorehealerDevoutlyApatheticMillHacksawWiseManTobeszagdrobagoajjjae2123TheCanManLoveIsUnityMan in the Mistsh3nduRhesus PositiveLovelyJeep-Eephistronicdestroyah87CasualKamarLinespider5RhalloTonnyCaptainNemoAntinumericglithertAlbino BunnyDizzy DLorahaloLord_AsmodeusJoolanderBouwsTMagell
  • YogoYogo Registered User regular
    edited January 2014
    ^ Is that an acne-scarred battlefield I'm seeing on his face?

    I'm divided on this issue. I live in Copenhagen in Denmark and there is an equally or seemingly big demand for legalizing marijuana. It is easy to get if you know the right person. During my time at the university, I ran into the occasional pothead and was okay with them smoking pot. It was their life and their choice. It was still illegal, but nobody was going to rat on anybody. Back then, I wasn't for or against it.

    Then life at the university ended and I had to move places. I moved in with a friend of a friend. I had met him a couple of time and he stroke me as a goofy kind of character, but likable enough. However, he smoked pot on a daily basis whenever he would come home from work, and he was simply dreadful to be around. His eyes were blank, you couldn't ask him a serious question without getting a "I don't know" answer all the time and the apartment stank because of the weed.

    I later moved out, but that experience firmly planted me in the Against faction of the debate. The method of consumption and the rate at which it is absorbed by your body makes it easy to disguise when you have smoked marijuana (save for possibly the smell). You are still left with a person whose mental faculties are somewhat hampered. To me I find it akin to a person chugging down 5 beers in a row and then meeting up with friends. At least in that case you can clearly tell, and alcohol has a much more visible damaging effect on a long term user. While there are clear differences in effects in the two examples, I feel they are on the same level when it comes to using substances which change your behavior in social settings (and not recreational social settings).

    I hope that the power of the social circle weeds out the potential problems when it comes to using marijuana like the decades before with alcohol abuse. I know that my world view has been forever changed by my previous roommate, and I will never view marijuana as a positive recreational substance - only as a medical substance to treat symptoms.

    But like I said, it is easy enough to get a hold of if you know the right persons. I don't know what change it would have on the societal level beyond making it more legally acceptable and having that goddamn dreadful pot smell everywhere.

    Yogo on
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I'm a little too busy staring at his terrifyingly in-human facial expression to look at his shirt or hair.
    He's probably thinking about how terrifyingly screwed he is if the federal government decides to get involved, what with all the cameras on him.

    Yogo wrote: »
    I know that my world view has been forever changed by my previous roommate, and I will never view marijuana as a positive recreational substance - only as a medical substance to treat symptoms.
    So if your roommate had been an alcoholic, would you be against the idea of alcohol being legal?

    icon.png facebookIcon.png tumblrIcon.png
    is this how nations are born
    joshofalltradesCaptain CarrotmcdermottRear Admiral ChocoCorehealerCaptainPeacockGennenalyse RuebenKamarLord_AsmodeusMagell
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited January 2014
    Yogo wrote: »
    ^ Is that an acne-scarred battlefield I'm seeing on his face?

    Jesus Christ.

    Why don't you get your own picture taken by dozens of cameras and published on the internet because I'm sure that nobody could ever possibly find something to ridicule. And I'm sure you never had a zit in your life, right?

    This is what pisses me right off about any attempted honest discussion of marijuana legalization. There is always some goose who attacks the easy targets of appearances/work ethic/whatever of the perceived slacker. Because it's far easier to try and make people who have actual, reasoned arguments for ending prohibition look ugly and lump everybody in with the worst of the legalization crowd than it is to debate your position in good faith.

    joshofalltrades on
    Man in the Mists
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Yogo wrote: »
    ^ Is that an acne-scarred battlefield I'm seeing on his face?

    I'm divided on this issue. I live in Copenhagen in Denmark and there is an equally or seemingly big demand for legalizing marijuana. It is easy to get if you know the right person. During my time at the university, I ran into the occasional pothead and was okay with them smoking pot. It was their life and their choice. It was still illegal, but nobody was going to rat on anybody. Back then, I wasn't for or against it.

    Then life at the university ended and I had to move places. I moved in with a friend of a friend. I had met him a couple of time and he stroke me as a goofy kind of character, but likable enough. However, he smoked pot on a daily basis whenever he would come home from work, and he was simply dreadful to be around. His eyes were blank, you couldn't ask him a serious question without getting a "I don't know" answer all the time and the apartment stank because of the weed.

    I later moved out, but that experience firmly planted me in the Against faction of the debate. The method of consumption and the rate at which it is absorbed by your body makes it easy to disguise when you have smoked marijuana (save for possibly the smell). You are still left with a person whose mental faculties are somewhat hampered. To me I find it akin to a person chugging down 5 beers in a row and then meeting up with friends. At least in that case you can clearly tell, and alcohol has a much more visible damaging effect on a long term user. While there are clear differences in effects in the two examples, I feel they are on the same level when it comes to using substances which change your behavior in social settings (and not recreational social settings).

    I hope that the power of the social circle weeds out the potential problems when it comes to using marijuana like the decades before with alcohol abuse. I know that my world view has been forever changed by my previous roommate, and I will never view marijuana as a positive recreational substance - only as a medical substance to treat symptoms.

    But like I said, it is easy enough to get a hold of if you know the right persons. I don't know what change it would have on the societal level beyond making it more legally acceptable and having that goddamn dreadful pot smell everywhere.

    Gotta wonder.

    Did you ever try asking him to smoke outside?

  • YogoYogo Registered User regular
    edited January 2014
    Yogo wrote: »
    ^ Is that an acne-scarred battlefield I'm seeing on his face?

    Jesus Christ.

    Why don't you get your own picture taken by dozens of cameras and published on the internet because I'm sure that nobody could ever possibly find something to ridicule. And I'm sure you never had a zit in your life, right?

    This is what pisses me right off about any attempted honest discussion of marijuana legalization. There is always some goose who attacks the easy targets of appearances/work ethic/whatever of the perceived slacker. Because it's far easier to try and make people who have actual, reasoned arguments for ending prohibition look ugly and lump everybody in with the worst of the legalization crowd than it is to debate your position in good faith.

    Stop being a goose, Josh. I asked a simple question because I saw something I was unsure what was. How the hell do you link that to an attack on him? Did I imply a stereotype in my message below? No? Good then.
    Trace wrote: »
    Yogo wrote: »
    ^ Is that an acne-scarred battlefield I'm seeing on his face?

    I'm divided on this issue. I live in Copenhagen in Denmark and there is an equally or seemingly big demand for legalizing marijuana. It is easy to get if you know the right person. During my time at the university, I ran into the occasional pothead and was okay with them smoking pot. It was their life and their choice. It was still illegal, but nobody was going to rat on anybody. Back then, I wasn't for or against it.

    Then life at the university ended and I had to move places. I moved in with a friend of a friend. I had met him a couple of time and he stroke me as a goofy kind of character, but likable enough. However, he smoked pot on a daily basis whenever he would come home from work, and he was simply dreadful to be around. His eyes were blank, you couldn't ask him a serious question without getting a "I don't know" answer all the time and the apartment stank because of the weed.

    I later moved out, but that experience firmly planted me in the Against faction of the debate. The method of consumption and the rate at which it is absorbed by your body makes it easy to disguise when you have smoked marijuana (save for possibly the smell). You are still left with a person whose mental faculties are somewhat hampered. To me I find it akin to a person chugging down 5 beers in a row and then meeting up with friends. At least in that case you can clearly tell, and alcohol has a much more visible damaging effect on a long term user. While there are clear differences in effects in the two examples, I feel they are on the same level when it comes to using substances which change your behavior in social settings (and not recreational social settings).

    I hope that the power of the social circle weeds out the potential problems when it comes to using marijuana like the decades before with alcohol abuse. I know that my world view has been forever changed by my previous roommate, and I will never view marijuana as a positive recreational substance - only as a medical substance to treat symptoms.

    But like I said, it is easy enough to get a hold of if you know the right persons. I don't know what change it would have on the societal level beyond making it more legally acceptable and having that goddamn dreadful pot smell everywhere.

    Gotta wonder.

    Did you ever try asking him to smoke outside?

    He only smoked inside his room and attempted to keep the smell inside by insulating the room as much as possible. That was something I couldn't force him to stop doing since he was living in the apartment before me, and was best-buddies with the owner.

    That didn't prevent the smell from seeping out into the rest of the apartment due to drafts.
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I'm a little too busy staring at his terrifyingly in-human facial expression to look at his shirt or hair.
    He's probably thinking about how terrifyingly screwed he is if the federal government decides to get involved, what with all the cameras on him.

    Yogo wrote: »
    I know that my world view has been forever changed by my previous roommate, and I will never view marijuana as a positive recreational substance - only as a medical substance to treat symptoms.
    So if your roommate had been an alcoholic, would you be against the idea of alcohol being legal?

    If my roommate had been an alcoholic, I wouldn't have moved in with him in the first place. As I said, an alcoholic is much easier to spot. A marijuana user is not.

    Yogo on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Riddle me this, Batman: what does acne have to do with anything we've discussed in this thread so far?

  • YogoYogo Registered User regular
    Riddle me this, Batman: what does acne have to do with anything we've discussed in this thread so far?

    Do you find it so alien to ask a question when you see something you are unsure what is, regardless whether or not it is related to the topic at hand?

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Yes I do, particularly when the topic of discussion is whether or not the guy seems like a slacker loser kid.

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Riddle me this, Batman: what does acne have to do with anything we've discussed in this thread so far?

    Pretty sure it's one of the 97 million medical problems that I've been assured nature's miracle plant can cure.

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    h3nduJackdawGin
  • YogoYogo Registered User regular
    edited January 2014
    Yes I do, particularly when the topic of discussion is whether or not the guy seems like a slacker loser kid.

    That may be what you et al. were discussing earlier in the thread. I had a genuine question which was unrelated to that discussion, and then decided to chip in with my own opinion while I was in the thread.

    Yogo on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Yogo wrote: »
    Yes I do, particularly when the topic of discussion is whether or not the guy seems like a slacker loser kid.

    That may be what you et al. were discussing earlier in the thread. I had a genuine question which was unrelated to that discussion, and then decided to chip in with my own opinion while I was in the thread.

    Yeah dude, light up and relax. You are harshing our mellow with your tude.

    Guy looks genuinely fucking terrified though.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    For the jillionth time, it doesn't matter if weed is so dangerous that it makes people shit out their own livers and lungs. We don't make it a crimial offence to catch Ebola. The rationale for decriminalisation is

    1) As even those who oppose decriminalisation readily admit, people can and do easily buy it anyway. The stated purpose of prohibition is something that not even its advocates can defend as having succeeded. The actual purpose - to use as legal leverage against minorities, dissidents and annoying non-conformists is tacitly admitted nearly as widely.

    2) The social and health cost of MJ use is a minute fraction of the social, financial and health cost of prohibition, even if prohibition actually worked. Which everyone admits it doesn't.

    3) The entire basis under which MJ was original criminalised is indisputably accepted to have been based on commercial propoganda (ref: Hearst vs hemp), a heaping helping of racism and outright lies. If weed was a person, it would have received a presidential pardon a couple of decades ago.

  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    edited January 2014
    ill give you a hint

    something being illegal a priori always causes some harm, simply by necessity of opportunity cost and the harmful nature of anti-criminal activity. punishment is harm

    things default to being legal because you have to clear a pretty high bar of the harm dealt by making this illegal is smaller than the harm dealt by leaving it as it is

    note that huge amounts of harmful activity is legal

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
    override367ArdolFeralAresProphetGnome-InterruptusLoren MichaelHacksawzagdrobPLALoveIsUnityh3nduLord_Asmodeus
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I was saying "legalize pot" is more complicated than people just wanting to get stoned legally, as evidenced by our complex relationship with legal alcohol

    Sorry if that's too complicated for you

    Something I said myself already in the post you replied to and not something you said in your own post, which was some weird mush attacking some strawman who was apparently saying all people who smoke pot are from a Cheech and Chong film before he wandered off down the yellow brick road.

    I still have no idea what you are going on about alcohol for, but it's got nothing to do with the topic or the discussion in the posts you were responding to, which was about the reasons for people wanting to legalize pot. Which most definitely include a shit ton of people just in it for legal weed.

    the comparison to alcohol suggests this is a more complicated topic than you think

    back when prohibition was legal was a man who was passionate about wine and thinking about starting a vineyard 'just in it for the legal alcohol?'


    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
    tyrannus wrote: »
    Casual Eddy: best poster of 2015

    gotta update that stuff man
    Kristmas KthulhuFeralh3nduKamarLord_Asmodeus
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    FDA approval

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited January 2014
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Yogo wrote: »
    Yes I do, particularly when the topic of discussion is whether or not the guy seems like a slacker loser kid.

    That may be what you et al. were discussing earlier in the thread. I had a genuine question which was unrelated to that discussion, and then decided to chip in with my own opinion while I was in the thread.

    Yeah dude, light up and relax. You are harshing our mellow with your tude.

    Guy looks genuinely fucking terrified though.

    given that he's still committing a federal crime I wouldn't want to be in the papers that I buy weed, employers are still assholes

    I've lived with drug dealers to give me the negative view and my niece smoked up while on cancer treatment to moderate success (better than anything the hospital was giving her) so I've seen a fairly decent range of effects of weed. To me the case isn't that pot is somewhat harmful, it can be, socially. I have yet to find evidence that it actually causes serious health issues aside from the lung damage from smoking it.

    Meanwhile I live in the heart of American booze culture and have two serious violent alcoholics in my family so by the standards of our laws it makes no sense whatsoever for weed to be illegal. The worst I've heard claimed is weed legalization might lead to a bunch of intoxicated driving and traffic fatalities, but I've seen no evidence of that even if it makes sense.

    override367 on
    minirhyder
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Pot has a push-pull relationship with lung damage that basically comes out as a wash

    it does have harmful effects to the growth and development of young kids and is counterproductive when used to treat anxiety or psychoses (like paranoia).

    In the hospital, it can be prescribed not for pain, but for the munchies, as eating, sleeping, and exercise are the three biggest deals for inpatients

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    Julius
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    it gave my niece her appetite back on chemo and VICE did a thing about a 7 year old girl it did the same thing for (although her parents were a bit whacko)

    seems to be a fair bit of evidence that schedule 1 is completely nonsensical

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    My wife and I were on it during chemo as well. She lost 25 lbs. and I lost 10 (I had less to lose; started out at 135 lbs. and went down to 125). Once we started a regimen we stopped vomiting all the time and actually had a healthy appetite at mealtimes.

    It's safe to say the "no accepted medical use" part of the scheduling is complete and total horseshit.

    JuliusshrykePolaritieHacksawzagdrobh3nduAndy JoeKamarLord_AsmodeusBlameless Cleric
  • TommattTommatt Registered User regular
    edited January 2014
    If I had a young one who was suffering from something horrible that cannabis could help, there is no question that I would try it. My little tangent on the medical side, I find it hilariously sad that people have no problem giving their children pills that are derived from the same plant that makes heroin, and man made chemicals that mess with our brain chemistry, no questions asked, but they will vilify people that are trying everything they can to stop their kid from dying, or having a life that is controlled by the amount of seizures they have with marijuana.

    Tommatt on
  • TommattTommatt Registered User regular
    My wife and I were on it during chemo as well. She lost 25 lbs. and I lost 10 (I had less to lose; started out at 135 lbs. and went down to 125). Once we started a regimen we stopped vomiting all the time and actually had a healthy appetite at mealtimes.

    It's safe to say the "no accepted medical use" part of the scheduling is complete and total horseshit.

    IMO this is the only reason there has been a true legalization movement with such steam.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Man everything is a chemical, man-made or not.

    The thing with pot is that there are dozens of cannabinoids that have been identified, and the easiest way to get the effect that's desired from them is to just use the dang plant that's right there. Hopefully through a healthy method like vaporization.

    If people could get their regular prescription through a plant you could pretty well bet they wouldn't be going to a pharmacy for them, but as it stands man-made chemicals happen to sometimes be better at certain things than naturally-occurring drugs. Pot is an exception for certain people suffering from certain things.

    Man-made, natural, whatever. They're all drugs.

    Gnome-InterruptusHacksawKamar
  • TommattTommatt Registered User regular
    Man everything is a chemical, man-made or not.

    The thing with pot is that there are dozens of cannabinoids that have been identified, and the easiest way to get the effect that's desired from them is to just use the dang plant that's right there. Hopefully through a healthy method like vaporization.

    If people could get their regular prescription through a plant you could pretty well bet they wouldn't be going to a pharmacy for them, but as it stands man-made chemicals happen to sometimes be better at certain things than naturally-occurring drugs. Pot is an exception for certain people suffering from certain things.

    Man-made, natural, whatever. They're all drugs.

    Exactly. But because one can be prescribed one is thought of as evil. And when I referred to man made, I meant all the various anti depressants that have ads like "if you have suicidal thoughts stop using" shouldn't anti depressants stop suicidal thoughts? I don't trust a lot of those. But back to the point, have you heard of Charlotte's web? Not the book, the hash oil that 2 guys are making that is very low in the CBD's that get you high and the CBN's that are thought to be medicinal (I might have these backwards) By processing it the way they are, they are committing a huge crime, but have made a medicine that is probably the best way to administer to a child that is suffering from multiple seizures a day. I just think of the wonderful things that could be if there was real money and real research behind it.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I was saying "legalize pot" is more complicated than people just wanting to get stoned legally, as evidenced by our complex relationship with legal alcohol

    Sorry if that's too complicated for you

    Something I said myself already in the post you replied to and not something you said in your own post, which was some weird mush attacking some strawman who was apparently saying all people who smoke pot are from a Cheech and Chong film before he wandered off down the yellow brick road.

    I still have no idea what you are going on about alcohol for, but it's got nothing to do with the topic or the discussion in the posts you were responding to, which was about the reasons for people wanting to legalize pot. Which most definitely include a shit ton of people just in it for legal weed.

    the comparison to alcohol suggests this is a more complicated topic than you think

    back when prohibition was legal was a man who was passionate about wine and thinking about starting a vineyard 'just in it for the legal alcohol?'

    Which is a nonsensical point since I've never claimed it's not complicated nor have you shown anything to indicate what I actually said was incorrect. You've simply wandered off on some silly tangent and aren't making any sense.

    In fact, the only thing you seem consistent and clear on is an attempt to perhaps subtly imply that nobody is actually in it just for legal pot. But since that's a stupid position, I'm choosing to believe you aren't making it and are instead just not making any damn sense at all.

  • Rear Admiral ChocoRear Admiral Choco Registered User regular
    I don't really see how people who are in it just for legal consumption with no further thought as to the wider social benefits really detract from anything

    2WJtdLD.png
    Jediabiwan
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I don't really see how people who are in it just for legal consumption with no further thought as to the wider social benefits really detract from anything

    Who said they did?

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited January 2014
    Yogo wrote: »
    If my roommate had been an alcoholic, I wouldn't have moved in with him in the first place. As I said, an alcoholic is much easier to spot. A marijuana user is not.

    No? No. Substance abuse takes a lot of different forms. I don't know why you think someone abusing alcohol would be easy to spot but not someone abusing pot.

    The reality is it could be obvious or not at all for either.

    Quid on
    joshofalltradesGnome-Interruptuszagdrobh3nduAndy JoeLord_Asmodeusminirhyder
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I was saying "legalize pot" is more complicated than people just wanting to get stoned legally, as evidenced by our complex relationship with legal alcohol

    Sorry if that's too complicated for you

    Something I said myself already in the post you replied to and not something you said in your own post, which was some weird mush attacking some strawman who was apparently saying all people who smoke pot are from a Cheech and Chong film before he wandered off down the yellow brick road.

    I still have no idea what you are going on about alcohol for, but it's got nothing to do with the topic or the discussion in the posts you were responding to, which was about the reasons for people wanting to legalize pot. Which most definitely include a shit ton of people just in it for legal weed.

    the comparison to alcohol suggests this is a more complicated topic than you think

    back when prohibition was legal was a man who was passionate about wine and thinking about starting a vineyard 'just in it for the legal alcohol?'

    Which is a nonsensical point since I've never claimed it's not complicated nor have you shown anything to indicate what I actually said was incorrect. You've simply wandered off on some silly tangent and aren't making any sense.

    In fact, the only thing you seem consistent and clear on is an attempt to perhaps subtly imply that nobody is actually in it just for legal pot. But since that's a stupid position, I'm choosing to believe you aren't making it and are instead just not making any damn sense at all.

    I think it's more disagreement with the implication that "being in it for the legal pot" is somehow not a perfectly reasonable and justifiable position to have. The phrasing is dismissive. Like wanting to have pot be legal so that you can partake in it legally without worry is not a good reason, not like the reasons us noble folk have for all our positions.

    While that might not be what you mean it does look similar to what others say who really actually do mean that.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I was saying "legalize pot" is more complicated than people just wanting to get stoned legally, as evidenced by our complex relationship with legal alcohol

    Sorry if that's too complicated for you

    Something I said myself already in the post you replied to and not something you said in your own post, which was some weird mush attacking some strawman who was apparently saying all people who smoke pot are from a Cheech and Chong film before he wandered off down the yellow brick road.

    I still have no idea what you are going on about alcohol for, but it's got nothing to do with the topic or the discussion in the posts you were responding to, which was about the reasons for people wanting to legalize pot. Which most definitely include a shit ton of people just in it for legal weed.

    the comparison to alcohol suggests this is a more complicated topic than you think

    back when prohibition was legal was a man who was passionate about wine and thinking about starting a vineyard 'just in it for the legal alcohol?'

    Which is a nonsensical point since I've never claimed it's not complicated nor have you shown anything to indicate what I actually said was incorrect. You've simply wandered off on some silly tangent and aren't making any sense.

    In fact, the only thing you seem consistent and clear on is an attempt to perhaps subtly imply that nobody is actually in it just for legal pot. But since that's a stupid position, I'm choosing to believe you aren't making it and are instead just not making any damn sense at all.

    No; you just said, "Not every pot smoker is interested in the social justice part!" as if this was a novel discovery and/or relevant to the topic, and you posted it in order to draw a line of equivalence between a malicious apparatus that is clearly racist in persuasion and a subculture that is, at worst, selfish & apathetic.

    With Love and Courage
    PLAtestsubject23
  • see317see317 Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Yogo wrote: »
    If my roommate had been an alcoholic, I wouldn't have moved in with him in the first place. As I said, an alcoholic is much easier to spot. A marijuana user is not.

    No? No. Substance abuse takes a lot of different forms. I don't know why you think someone abusing alcohol would be easy to spot but not someone abusing pot.

    The reality is it could be obvious or not at all for either.
    I'm curious as to how you'd spot an alcoholic, but not be able to notice a person who regularly abused pot.

    It's a tangent from the discussion, I know, but I'd like to know.

    Ringo wrote: »
    Well except what see317 said. That guy's always wrong.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2014
    The Ender wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I was saying "legalize pot" is more complicated than people just wanting to get stoned legally, as evidenced by our complex relationship with legal alcohol

    Sorry if that's too complicated for you

    Something I said myself already in the post you replied to and not something you said in your own post, which was some weird mush attacking some strawman who was apparently saying all people who smoke pot are from a Cheech and Chong film before he wandered off down the yellow brick road.

    I still have no idea what you are going on about alcohol for, but it's got nothing to do with the topic or the discussion in the posts you were responding to, which was about the reasons for people wanting to legalize pot. Which most definitely include a shit ton of people just in it for legal weed.

    the comparison to alcohol suggests this is a more complicated topic than you think

    back when prohibition was legal was a man who was passionate about wine and thinking about starting a vineyard 'just in it for the legal alcohol?'

    Which is a nonsensical point since I've never claimed it's not complicated nor have you shown anything to indicate what I actually said was incorrect. You've simply wandered off on some silly tangent and aren't making any sense.

    In fact, the only thing you seem consistent and clear on is an attempt to perhaps subtly imply that nobody is actually in it just for legal pot. But since that's a stupid position, I'm choosing to believe you aren't making it and are instead just not making any damn sense at all.

    No; you just said, "Not every pot smoker is interested in the social justice part!" as if this was a novel discovery and/or relevant to the topic, and you posted it in order to draw a line of equivalence between a malicious apparatus that is clearly racist in persuasion and a subculture that is, at worst, selfish & apathetic.

    No, I posted it in response to someone making claims about the movement being about social justice. Like, go to the last page, that's exactly what was said.
    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/28806415/#Comment_28806415
    It's exactly relevant to the post I was responding to and then right afterwords explicitly say there ISN'T an equivalence between the two. And then you and others threw some silly fit or something about some strawman you invented, as you are doing right now with your silly and unfounded assumptions about what was said.

    There are, as I said last page, two separate but overlapping issues involved in the legalize pot fight, the fight about legalizing pot and the fight about ending the drug war. This is the opposite of your claim that I'm trying to draw an equivalence.

    I mean, this whole thing started with someone answering the question "Why isn't anyone talking about this?" with the answer "Because all this does is shut up the 'legalize pot!' crowd". It's implications for the social justice side are not well defined or all that robust as of now.

    shryke on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2014
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I was saying "legalize pot" is more complicated than people just wanting to get stoned legally, as evidenced by our complex relationship with legal alcohol

    Sorry if that's too complicated for you

    Something I said myself already in the post you replied to and not something you said in your own post, which was some weird mush attacking some strawman who was apparently saying all people who smoke pot are from a Cheech and Chong film before he wandered off down the yellow brick road.

    I still have no idea what you are going on about alcohol for, but it's got nothing to do with the topic or the discussion in the posts you were responding to, which was about the reasons for people wanting to legalize pot. Which most definitely include a shit ton of people just in it for legal weed.

    the comparison to alcohol suggests this is a more complicated topic than you think

    back when prohibition was legal was a man who was passionate about wine and thinking about starting a vineyard 'just in it for the legal alcohol?'

    Which is a nonsensical point since I've never claimed it's not complicated nor have you shown anything to indicate what I actually said was incorrect. You've simply wandered off on some silly tangent and aren't making any sense.

    In fact, the only thing you seem consistent and clear on is an attempt to perhaps subtly imply that nobody is actually in it just for legal pot. But since that's a stupid position, I'm choosing to believe you aren't making it and are instead just not making any damn sense at all.

    I think it's more disagreement with the implication that "being in it for the legal pot" is somehow not a perfectly reasonable and justifiable position to have. The phrasing is dismissive. Like wanting to have pot be legal so that you can partake in it legally without worry is not a good reason, not like the reasons us noble folk have for all our positions.

    While that might not be what you mean it does look similar to what others say who really actually do mean that.

    Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with wanting pot to be legal. But it's silly and simply wrong to pretend it's all a social justice crusade based on incarceration stats for minorities and such. I don't think the phrasing is dismissive at all unless you come in to the discussion with a chip on your shoulder about it. It's only dismissive if you believe "why shouldn't it be legal?" is a bad argument in the first place.

    shryke on
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I was saying "legalize pot" is more complicated than people just wanting to get stoned legally, as evidenced by our complex relationship with legal alcohol

    Sorry if that's too complicated for you

    Something I said myself already in the post you replied to and not something you said in your own post, which was some weird mush attacking some strawman who was apparently saying all people who smoke pot are from a Cheech and Chong film before he wandered off down the yellow brick road.

    I still have no idea what you are going on about alcohol for, but it's got nothing to do with the topic or the discussion in the posts you were responding to, which was about the reasons for people wanting to legalize pot. Which most definitely include a shit ton of people just in it for legal weed.

    the comparison to alcohol suggests this is a more complicated topic than you think

    back when prohibition was legal was a man who was passionate about wine and thinking about starting a vineyard 'just in it for the legal alcohol?'

    Which is a nonsensical point since I've never claimed it's not complicated nor have you shown anything to indicate what I actually said was incorrect. You've simply wandered off on some silly tangent and aren't making any sense.

    In fact, the only thing you seem consistent and clear on is an attempt to perhaps subtly imply that nobody is actually in it just for legal pot. But since that's a stupid position, I'm choosing to believe you aren't making it and are instead just not making any damn sense at all.
    Neither are the "legalize pot man!" brigade.
    this was you saying that these people are not a minority of the movement to legalize or end the drug war.
    It's not stereotyping to point out that large portions of the "legalize pot!" movement are interested in nothing more then getting stoned legally.

    I dunno man it sounds like you're simplifying it a little bit. how about we talk about things instead of you saying I don't make sense repeatedly? I am not really sure how to be clearer about this, is my point absurd to anyone else?

    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
    tyrannus wrote: »
    Casual Eddy: best poster of 2015

    gotta update that stuff man
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I was saying "legalize pot" is more complicated than people just wanting to get stoned legally, as evidenced by our complex relationship with legal alcohol

    Sorry if that's too complicated for you

    Something I said myself already in the post you replied to and not something you said in your own post, which was some weird mush attacking some strawman who was apparently saying all people who smoke pot are from a Cheech and Chong film before he wandered off down the yellow brick road.

    I still have no idea what you are going on about alcohol for, but it's got nothing to do with the topic or the discussion in the posts you were responding to, which was about the reasons for people wanting to legalize pot. Which most definitely include a shit ton of people just in it for legal weed.

    the comparison to alcohol suggests this is a more complicated topic than you think

    back when prohibition was legal was a man who was passionate about wine and thinking about starting a vineyard 'just in it for the legal alcohol?'

    Which is a nonsensical point since I've never claimed it's not complicated nor have you shown anything to indicate what I actually said was incorrect. You've simply wandered off on some silly tangent and aren't making any sense.

    In fact, the only thing you seem consistent and clear on is an attempt to perhaps subtly imply that nobody is actually in it just for legal pot. But since that's a stupid position, I'm choosing to believe you aren't making it and are instead just not making any damn sense at all.

    I think it's more disagreement with the implication that "being in it for the legal pot" is somehow not a perfectly reasonable and justifiable position to have. The phrasing is dismissive. Like wanting to have pot be legal so that you can partake in it legally without worry is not a good reason, not like the reasons us noble folk have for all our positions.

    While that might not be what you mean it does look similar to what others say who really actually do mean that.

    Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with wanting pot to be legal. But it's silly and simply wrong to pretend it's all a social justice crusade based on incarceration stats for minorities and such. I don't think the phrasing is dismissive at all unless you come in to the discussion with a chip on your shoulder about it. It's only dismissive if you believe "why shouldn't it be legal?" is a bad argument in the first place.

    who is doing this other than you?

    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
    tyrannus wrote: »
    Casual Eddy: best poster of 2015

    gotta update that stuff man
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I was saying "legalize pot" is more complicated than people just wanting to get stoned legally, as evidenced by our complex relationship with legal alcohol

    Sorry if that's too complicated for you

    Something I said myself already in the post you replied to and not something you said in your own post, which was some weird mush attacking some strawman who was apparently saying all people who smoke pot are from a Cheech and Chong film before he wandered off down the yellow brick road.

    I still have no idea what you are going on about alcohol for, but it's got nothing to do with the topic or the discussion in the posts you were responding to, which was about the reasons for people wanting to legalize pot. Which most definitely include a shit ton of people just in it for legal weed.

    the comparison to alcohol suggests this is a more complicated topic than you think

    back when prohibition was legal was a man who was passionate about wine and thinking about starting a vineyard 'just in it for the legal alcohol?'

    Which is a nonsensical point since I've never claimed it's not complicated nor have you shown anything to indicate what I actually said was incorrect. You've simply wandered off on some silly tangent and aren't making any sense.

    In fact, the only thing you seem consistent and clear on is an attempt to perhaps subtly imply that nobody is actually in it just for legal pot. But since that's a stupid position, I'm choosing to believe you aren't making it and are instead just not making any damn sense at all.

    No; you just said, "Not every pot smoker is interested in the social justice part!" as if this was a novel discovery and/or relevant to the topic, and you posted it in order to draw a line of equivalence between a malicious apparatus that is clearly racist in persuasion and a subculture that is, at worst, selfish & apathetic.

    No, I posted it in response to someone making claims about the movement being about social justice. Like, go to the last page, that's exactly what was said.
    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/28806415/#Comment_28806415
    It's exactly relevant to the post I was responding to and then right afterwords explicitly say there ISN'T an equivalence between the two. And then you and others threw some silly fit or something about some strawman you invented, as you are doing right now with your silly and unfounded assumptions about what was said.

    There are, as I said last page, two separate but overlapping issues involved in the legalize pot fight, the fight about legalizing pot and the fight about ending the drug war. This is the opposite of your claim that I'm trying to draw an equivalence.

    I mean, this whole thing started with someone answering the question "Why isn't anyone talking about this?" with the answer "Because all this does is shut up the 'legalize pot!' crowd". It's implications for the social justice side are not well defined or all that robust as of now.

    so you don't think it's problematic that black people are arrested at much higher rates than white people even though they use them at the same rate, or that half of our drug arrests are for marijuana possession? What's unclear or ill-defined about either of those?

    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
    tyrannus wrote: »
    Casual Eddy: best poster of 2015

    gotta update that stuff man
Sign In or Register to comment.