Should marijuana be legalized? [Archive]

baseline bum

12-21-2009, 04:45 AM

I don't see any cons to weed legalization.

Pros

Grown people should be allowed to do as they wish with their own bodies
Weed is awesome
Weed should become cheaper without the costs of smuggling it past the DEA
Grown people should be allowed to do as they wish with their own bodies
It'll be a crushing defeat for the cocksuckers in the prison industrial complex when we don't have to subsidize their business by declaring war on our own citizens.
It'll make the police forfeit their "right" to raid a person's possessions and seize property just because he is accused of a marijuana-related "crime"
Grown people should be allowed to do as they wish with their own bodies
Weed will become much harder for minors to obtain, since drug dealers don't check IDs but pharmacies do. A legal smoking age of 18 would make a lot of sense.
People making money off the huge business of the drug trade will have to pay Social Security, Medicare, and income tax just like the rest of us.
It'll make our streets way safer, when there's no illegal market for the drug worth killing over anymore.
Grown people should be allowed to do as they wish with their own bodies
Grown people should be allowed to do as they wish with their own bodies
Grown people should be allowed to do as they wish with their own bodies
Grown people should be allowed to do as they wish with their own bodies

Seriously, all but #2 apply to all drugs in the United States though: coke, acid, heroin, etc. Anyone who believes its the government's duty to limit access to substances that could prove dangerous if abused would also have to logically support the abolition of our access tobacco, alcohol, fried foods, McDonalds, and Coke. Plus, you could outlaw watching TV and playing XBox, and all other sorts of things that turn you into a fatass.

It's an absolute slam-dunk even without the medicinal argument (which is also very compelling).

whottt

12-21-2009, 05:02 AM

It'll make the police forfeit their "right" to raid a person's possessions and seize property just because he is accused of a marijuana-related "crime"

That's a huge one right there....

Plus, it's obvious people are going to use it whether it is legal or not, making it illegal forces people to engage in a criminal activity(with legitimate criminals willing to enage in much more criminal acts) who might otherwise not do so.

Hooks

12-21-2009, 05:23 AM

I don't see any cons to weed legalization.

The only ones I could really think of would be people driving while they're high and kids using it. There are a lot of people that drive while high, but still it's a pretty dangerous thing to do, and I'm sure even more would do it if it was legalized. There are a lot of stupid people in this country and stupid people do stupid things, you gotta remember that. I'm sure there'd be very strict laws though.

boutons_deux

12-21-2009, 05:28 AM

Legalize it, and free all the people who are imprisoned for simple possession, and wipe their records clean.

The Prison Industrial Complex will block legalization with a few well-placed $Ms of their $Bs.

I expect TX and other backward red-states will be the last, if ever, to legalize.

Evil Angel

12-21-2009, 05:37 AM

Hell yes!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_marijuana_california

baseline bum

12-21-2009, 05:40 AM

The only ones I could really think of would be people driving while they're high and kids using it. There are a lot of people that drive while high, but still it's a pretty dangerous thing to do, and I'm sure even more would do it if it was legalized. There are a lot of stupid people in this country and stupid people do stupid things, you gotta remember that. I'm sure there'd be very strict laws though.

You could make the driving impaired argument against us having access to cellphones, and frankly, I doubt a stoner in a Toyota is anywhere close to as much of a danger on the road as some idiot yammering into her cell-phone while at the wheel of her giant SUV. As for the children thing, it sounds like you're contradicting one of your earlier post about just how easy it is for kids to get a hold of it on the black market.

Marcus Bryant

12-21-2009, 07:48 AM

fsowQ0hE9gA

EmptyMan

12-21-2009, 09:23 AM

I was about to bash Baseline Bum for wanting to group the rest of the trash drugs in with Weed but then I thought how it would actually speed up Darwinism within our society and I was like, feels good man.

Rogue

12-21-2009, 09:43 AM

Government would make a lot by levying on marijuana dealers, and marijuana users would buy it much cheaper after it's legalized, while legalizing marijuana has no actual impact on most of the common people who don't smoke marijuana. Then I mean, why not legalize it?

I think the only group of people yielding against it are those who currently make a lot of money by selling weeds illegally.

BacktoBasics

12-21-2009, 09:49 AM

Yes it should be legalized.

There is one issue that would be a big issue if it were to be legalized and that's the process involved with determining if someone is driving under the influence. Its a no brainer that if marijuana was legal it would remain illegal to do certain things or operate certain machinery while under the influence.

With marijuana testing you could potentially be just as positive for usage after 10 days as you would be after a few hours. What if I smoke on a Tuesday and were pulled over on a Thursday only to be tested positive for driving under the influence. Alcohol and coke are basically 24 hour drugs. The same doesn't apply to dope so how do you go about policing it once it's legal.

I think this would be a huge issue. Tying up the courts for false or accused DUI's and DWI's.

ElNono

12-21-2009, 09:59 AM

I think it should be legalized.

Cry Havoc

12-21-2009, 10:04 AM

I've never tried weed or really even felt compelled to use it.

That said, I still think it should be legal. It's idiotic and hypocritical to the nth degree to tell people that it's illegal but alcohol/cigarettes/tobacco are fine for consumption whenever a person wants.

balli

12-21-2009, 10:42 AM

I basically feel the answer is so obvious that I'm almost offended there's even a debate.

This is like debating whether or not we should have civil rights. Or whether or not to use public money to clean drinking water.

z0sa

12-21-2009, 10:58 AM

TheProfessor

12-21-2009, 11:04 AM

z0sa

12-21-2009, 11:10 AM

Blake

12-21-2009, 11:12 AM

Polls are showing greater support. It's only a matter of time.

maybe. It wouldn't surprise me if I never see it totally legalized in my lifetime.

balli

12-21-2009, 11:13 AM

I think the tide has already turned. The Department of Justice is turning a blind eye to medicinal marijuana use. Maine voters repealed their same sex marriage act, but simultaneously expanded use of marijuana. Polls are showing greater support. It's only a matter of time.

I personally don't think so. No matter how much popular will there is for it, political and corporate interests will ensure its legalization never happens. Legalizing marijuana would so dramatically change and better the world that these corprotitions would have a hard time holding on to their power, or much of it... and they know it.

Legalizing marijuana wouldn't just be giving people a new drug, it would be giving them a fresh, broad and radical outlook on self, nation and life itself. An outlook that is deeply, deeply antithetical to corporate interests.

We can't be allowed to think freely. Hence, marijuana won't ever be legal.

EmptyMan

12-21-2009, 11:19 AM

lol, plenty of people can think freely without having to smoke a plant.

I know plenty of people that smoke weed and they are still dumbasses.

Blake

12-21-2009, 11:19 AM

I personally don't think so. No matter how much popular will there is for it, political and corporate interests will ensure it's legalization never happens. Legalizing marijuana would so dramatically change and better the world that these corprotitions would have a hard time holding on to their power, or much of it... and they know it.

Legalizing marijuana wouldn't just be giving people a new drug, it would be giving them a fresh, broad and radical outlook on self, nation and life itself. An outlook that is deeply, deeply antithetical to corporate interests.

We can't be allowed to think freely. Hence, marijuana won't ever be legal.

I don't think free thinking is the reason why it might never be legalized.

It's pretty much all economical. Tobacco, cotton, paper, and more would all take a big hit.....

not to mention how it would be hard to tax it if people just grow it in their backyard.

balli

12-21-2009, 11:22 AM

lol, plenty of people can think freely without having to smoke a plant.
Plenty of people can't. Some of them think they can.
But that's not what my argument was about.

ElNono

12-21-2009, 12:07 PM

This topic is well beyond wether you smoke pot or not. There's a lot of things that would be affected by lifting the prohibition.

TheProfessor

12-21-2009, 12:51 PM

I personally don't think so. No matter how much popular will there is for it, political and corporate interests will ensure its legalization never happens. Legalizing marijuana would so dramatically change and better the world that these corprotitions would have a hard time holding on to their power, or much of it... and they know it.

Legalizing marijuana wouldn't just be giving people a new drug, it would be giving them a fresh, broad and radical outlook on self, nation and life itself. An outlook that is deeply, deeply antithetical to corporate interests.

We can't be allowed to think freely. Hence, marijuana won't ever be legal.
Respectfully disagree. Perpetuating drug use is something corporations can get behind. Not to mention the federal government. Control of free thought is second only to $$$. Both liberals and libertarians can get behind it. And someone like Jim Webb, who is neither, is speaking out against incarcerating non-violent offenders and how overwhelmed our criminal justice system is. We're moving in the right direction.

Nbadan

12-21-2009, 12:59 PM

the first step is decriminalization....you can be discriminated against for smoking pot so much easier than other illegal narcotics because it stays in your system longer....thus a coke user can refrain from use for less than a week and come back clean, but a pot user must wait 30-90 days depending on the use to come back clean....if you get into a car accident where someone else is hurt and you happened to smoke over the weekend that can be used against you....also, if you get into a accident at work and they request a urine analysis, as many do.....decriminalization would take care of these issues and put the focus back on those who are under the influence.....

boutons_deux

12-21-2009, 01:25 PM

whottt

12-21-2009, 01:52 PM

I had a good friend who smoked pot so he could concentrate, from college onwards through a professional engineer career. He assumed, 20 years later, after ADD became a fad diagnosis, that he had it, and pot had allowed him to maintain his attention, similar to many authors who write drunk for the lucidity and creativity.

I'm sure Jesus and his guys got more than a little drunk at The Last Supper :)

Hey, if Bible-thumpers can make up shit and believe it, so can I!

Jesus' promoted cannibalism, Hoc Est Corpus Meum, aka, the magical Hocus Pocus. :)

You are misinterpreting the bible as badly they are boutsy.

Observe:

From the book of Genesis:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his
kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth[b]: and it was so.

001:012 And [b]the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed
after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in
itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

001:029 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree,
in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it
shall be for meat.

001:030 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air,
and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there
is life, I have given every green herb for meat:/b] and it was
so.

002:005 [b]And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and
every herb of the field before it grew:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of
the garden thou mayest freely eat:

002:017 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt
not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou
shalt surely die.

We're talking page 2.

There's never been a religious leg to stand on. The bible doesn't say you can't smoke weed, and neither did Jesus. There is nothing there but interpretation.

Furthermore, science backs it up:

From 1993:

The first physical evidence that marijuana was used as a medicine in the ancient Mideast was reported Wednesday by Israeli scientists who found residue of the drug with the skeleton of a girl who apparently died in childbirth 1,600 years ago.

The researchers said the marijuana probably was used by a mid-wife trying to speed the birth, as well as ease the pain. Until now, the researchers wrote in a letter to the journal Nature, "physical evidence of cannabis (marijuana) use in the ancient Middle East has not yet been obtained."

The seven researchers -- from Hebrew University, the Israel Antiquities Authority and the National Police Headquarters forensic division -- said references to marijuana as a medicine are seen as far back as 1,600 B.C. in Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek and Roman writings. But physical evidence that the hemp weed, cannabis sativa, was used for that purpose has been missing.

The researchers' examination of an undisturbed family tomb near Jerusalem dating to the fourth century AD indicated the girl, about 14, died because her pelvis was too small to permit normal birth.

2700 year old marijuana stash:

http://ocnorml.org/history/ancient_cannabis_history2.dwt

There is even a theory that marijuana was used at one point to prove the existence of a spirit world, that it itself was a messenger of God.

Perhaps all the organized religions would get a bit more spiritual if they just sat back and sparked one up every once in a while.

Blake

12-21-2009, 02:44 PM

You are misinterpreting the bible as badly they are boutsy.

I'm betting you are are misinterpreting bd's post as badly as you think they are.

shelshor

12-21-2009, 02:58 PM

Yes

boutons_deux

12-21-2009, 03:07 PM

Whott-the-fuck, RIF. Try it while sober.

DarkReign

12-21-2009, 03:22 PM

Undoubtedly.

But no smoking on private property, its important. Health of others...on your private property, you know?

Blake

12-21-2009, 04:04 PM

Undoubtedly.

But no smoking on private property, its important. Health of others...on your private property, you know?

no smoking inside an enclosed public place. Health of others...which apparently you disregard.

Winehole23

12-21-2009, 04:13 PM

no smoking inside an enclosed public place. Health of others...which apparently you disregard.If others choose to stay, they disregard it too.

Blake

12-21-2009, 04:32 PM

If others choose to stay, they disregard it too.

or they give it regard but simply just put up with it

whottt

12-21-2009, 04:39 PM

I'm betting you are are misinterpreting bd's post as badly as you think they are.

And I'm betting you're wrong as you usually are.

Whott-the-fuck, RIF. Try it while sober.

I got what you were saying, I also remember what you said a few weeks ago...and I still felt the need to post that info.

Winehole23

12-21-2009, 04:53 PM

or they give it regard but simply just put up with itSure, why not.

Blake

12-21-2009, 04:55 PM

Whott-the-fuck, RIF. Try it while sober.

And I'm betting you're wrong as you usually are.

I got what you were saying, I also remember what you said a few weeks ago...and I still felt the need to post that info.

you lose again.

Blake

12-21-2009, 04:57 PM

Sure, why not.

because there is no risk free level of exposure to secondhand smoke according to the surgeon general.

Winehole23

12-21-2009, 05:48 PM

because there is no risk free level of exposure to secondhand smoke according to the surgeon general.I don't disagree with you, Blake.

You have more a choice than you once did. You don't have to be around cigarette smoke all the time if you don't want to. I'm just guessing you're old enough to remember when smoking was permitted on airplanes and buses and public buildings of every description.

For better and for worse, times have changed. Mostly for the better, I'll concede, but the old tolerance of smoking was at least based on a concrete regard for the liberty of others to do things that are unwise, offensive and even risky.

The heedlessness of others that leads the smoker to expose others to the risk as well perhaps does not deserve the consideration, but once upon a time, it was extended to him/her anyway. If there has been a change in consciousness with a beneficial public health result, there has also been a change in manners, again, for better and for worse.

Supergirl

12-21-2009, 06:20 PM

yes

J.T.

12-21-2009, 06:25 PM

lol saying a con of legalized weed is ass tons of people driving on it

iggypop123

12-21-2009, 09:25 PM

whats so good about marijuana that everyone risks arrest daily?

Supergirl

12-21-2009, 09:32 PM

I think decriminalization is a good place to start. It's worked pretty well in Massachusetts, where it was decriminalized a year ago. Here, it is a misdemeanor with a fine if you are caught with and ounce or less. Still illegal to sell and distribute, which is a little weird since obviously if someone's buying, someone else is selling and distributing, but hopefully that will get figured out next go around.

Marijuana is no more harmful to the body or the mind than alcohol and nicotine, and unlike nicotine, it actually has medicinal use. So I don't think it should carry any heavier regulation or legal charges than alcohol or nicotine.

Heath Ledger

12-21-2009, 10:31 PM

Pot will never be legalized too much money is made in busting the chumps walking around and driving with small amounts of pot on them. Read the book Arrest Proof Yourself it will open your eyes to just how much money is at stake if pot were legalized.

cornbread

12-21-2009, 11:42 PM

An outlook that is deeply, deeply antithetical to corporate interests.

I can just see the evil fast food companines lining up their armies of lobbyists to combat the legalization of marijuana.

greyforest

12-21-2009, 11:57 PM

Winehole23

12-22-2009, 03:46 AM

Blake

12-22-2009, 02:24 PM

I don't disagree with you, Blake.

You have more a choice than you once did. You don't have to be around cigarette smoke all the time if you don't want to. I'm just guessing you're old enough to remember when smoking was permitted on airplanes and buses and public buildings of every description.

For better and for worse, times have changed. Mostly for the better, I'll concede, but the old tolerance of smoking was at least based on a concrete regard for the liberty of others to do things that are unwise, offensive and even risky.

The heedlessness of others that leads the smoker to expose others to the risk as well perhaps does not deserve the consideration, but once upon a time, it was extended to him/her anyway. If there has been a change in consciousness with a beneficial public health result, there has also been a change in manners, again, for better and for worse.

I don't have a problem at all with people doing whatever the hell they want to themselves, but now that second hand smoke has been regarded almost universally to be a health hazard, I have a problem with it being in an enclosed public place.

Winehole23

12-22-2009, 03:18 PM

I have a problem with it being in an enclosed public place.Like a car? Sure, I can understand that. My parents were not heavy smokers, but they smoked in the car. I hated it.

Now that it's more widely known to be a bad idea, I guess I'd rather see people make better decisions for themselves, than have the state or municipality regulate the choice for them, but I guess that ship already sailed.

Safety trolls win again.

Marcus Bryant

12-22-2009, 03:26 PM

I'm not sure when liberty came to mean protection from one's self.

Blake

12-22-2009, 04:16 PM

Like a car? Sure, I can understand that. My parents were not heavy smokers, but they smoked in the car. I hated it.

I wasn't aware that the inside of a car could be considered a public place. That brings up an interesting point though.

Now that it's more widely known to be a bad idea, I guess I'd rather see people make better decisions for themselves, than have the state or municipality regulate the choice for them, but I guess that ship already sailed.

Safety trolls win again.

I enjoy going bowling every now and then and it's nice to know I can do so without having to breathe in hazardous air.

It's pretty clear people won't make the decision to smoke outside unless it's a law.

Winehole23

12-22-2009, 04:56 PM

I enjoy going bowling every now and then and it's nice to know I can do so without having to breathe in hazardous air.

It's pretty clear people won't make the decision to smoke outside unless it's a law.Proprietors can make the decision to ban smoking in their own buildings, and many of them did here in Austin well before a municipal ban was passed.

Winehole23

12-22-2009, 05:02 PM

I wasn't aware that the inside of a car could be considered a public place. That brings up an interesting point though. Your reply to DR's concern about smoking on "private property" mentioned "enclosed public spaces", so maybe it's understandable I got a little turned around.

Blake

12-22-2009, 05:18 PM

Your reply to DR's concern about smoking on "private property" mentioned "enclosed public spaces", so maybe it's understandable I got a little turned around.

DR could have been referring to residential private property, but I doubt it.

Winehole23

12-22-2009, 05:32 PM

DR could have been referring to residential private property, but I doubt it.I thought he was at first, but I've come around to your gloss. It makes more sense contextually.

Still, owners can regulate their own premises and often do. The idea that force is necessary to compel no-smoking compliance seems contradicted by my experience here in Austin, where a large variety of (indeed, almost all) "public accomodations" enforce it themselves, even though the city's no-smoking reg is defunct.

sabar

12-23-2009, 01:09 AM

Winehole23

12-23-2009, 01:12 AM

At the federal and state level, sure, but cities can still do whatever they want.

Winehole23

12-23-2009, 01:14 AM

13 US states have legal pot dispensaries now that I know of.

Blue Jew

12-23-2009, 05:00 AM

The sad part about weed being illegal is the amount of hard working Americans who have lost their jobs from a dirty piss test at work. If Obama really wants to get the economy going he needs to stop the piss testing unless your an airline pilot or you work for NORAD.

And he needs to pardon all felonies that are 15 years old. why should I never get to vote or get a good job because i got caught 25 years ago with a dime bag of coke/

I was only 22 years old and new order and DOA was playing at the dance clubs with girls wearing skirts so short they needed two hairdos. coke was everywhere i was young. Why should I suffer for the rest of my life while assholes like the mayor of Washington gets caught smoking crack on camera and keeps his job? Michale Irving, Darrell strawberry, hell even Bush said he tried coke.

If they pardon all drug felonies after 15 years and stop piss testing taco bell employees that alone will put millions of people back in the job market.

Now as far as weed goes? I have been around drugs since i was 8 years old i used to watch my dad shoot heroin with his Army buddies while listening to Jimmy Hendrix and I know i would rather had seen him smoke weed and watch tv all day than to be out robbing banks to support his habit. You don't know what it's like not knowing if there will be a TV in the living room every morning.

I have seen people who stop smoking weed they start to act strange, Take Bigzax for example. the guy used to be funny and even did some stand up but his wife talked him out of smoking weed now he is not funny he never comes over my place, and he is seeing a doctor for depression. now he is talking a shit load of pills just to be the way he was when he smoked weed.

You notice all the 420 smoke outs there is never any violence? how about you have a jack Daniels day and have 10 thousand people meet at a park drinking jack and coke four hours and tell me how many fights you have during the event.

tell me how many DUI's and how many cars are wrapped around trees and telephone poles that night. how many wives get beat up. how many young girls get raped.

I am at the age where i don't give a fuck if they legalize it or not I am going to smoke weed in my home every chance I get, which reminds me who here has any to sell?

http://laist.com/attachments/la_anti/weedreview2.jpg

nkdlunch

12-23-2009, 01:49 PM

Yes, but it will never happen. The war on drugs has too much money tied up in it for it to ever end. The entire correctional and police population will make sure it stays illegal at the federal level.

bingo. The drug czars have a LOT of powerful ppl behind them. They are receiving millions for their "war on pot". These ppl are judges, correctional officers, lawyers, police chiefs, politicians, etc. All corrupt and thisty for money and power. They could care less if legalizing pot is the obvious right choice.

Why do ppl start wars? a lot of the time is for economic gain. War on pot is nothing more than good business.

All these ppl have to do is gather a few bible thumping lemmings and easily put a stop to legalization of pot.

DarkReign

12-23-2009, 05:22 PM

DR could have been referring to residential private property, but I doubt it.

You rightly doubt it.

I readily understand banning smoking in private establishments that are open to the general public, regardless of age, etc. Places like an airplane, bus, restaurant, etc.

But adult establishments should not be subject to such a ban. The owner should set his own criteria. If there is such a large market for non-smoking bars, as in Austin as mentioned by WH, then so be it.

But we as a nation cater to the weakest who by virtue are the loudest. It would seem as soon as one has the majority, it truly rules...even though our system of government was specifically designed to protect the minority from the majority.

BacktoBasics

12-23-2009, 05:43 PM

We just lost another pool hall here due to the smoking ban. They were in a tight strip center and didn't have the ability to build a patio.

BacktoBasics

12-23-2009, 05:48 PM

Theo’s Billiard Saloon, 5815 Weber Road, saw a 37 percent drop in its August alcohol sales compared with the previous year, according to the tax receipts.

Pool hall staff member Josh Kurz said the dramatic drop came after the smoking ban went into effect. The pool hall has no way to build an outdoor smoking area because it’s in a strip center. If sales don’t improve, the pool hall will close in February when its lease is up, he said.

“I hear customers complaining,” he said. “I’d imagine (the sales drops) are because of the smoking ban.”

Pool halls like Theo’s saw the most dramatic declines in alcohol sales.

Alcohol sales dropped 49 percent at Hot Shots Pools and Billiards, 4951 Ayers St., 20 percent at Paradise Pool and Billiards, 5141 Oakhurst Drive, 14 percent at Click’s Billiards, 4535 S. Padre Island Drive, and 11 percent at Rascal’s, 5959 Williams Drive.Obviously they didn't make it to Feb.

DarkReign

12-24-2009, 01:54 AM

Surely the non-smoking population drives the bar scene, right? I mean, non-smokers have overwhelming influence in government, surely now that theyve outlawed the icky smoking, bars should flourish!

whottt

12-24-2009, 01:58 AM

I fully support the segregation of smokers and non-smokers. I get sick of being discriminated against by non-smokers. Seg-re-gate! Seg-re-gate!

whottt

12-24-2009, 02:50 AM

the sad part about weed being illegal is the amount of hard working americans who have lost their jobs from a dirty piss test at work. If obama really wants to get the economy going he needs to stop the piss testing unless your an airline pilot or you work for norad.

And he needs to pardon all felonies that are 15 years old. Why should i never get to vote or get a good job because i got caught 25 years ago with a dime bag of coke/

i was only 22 years old and new order and doa was playing at the dance clubs with girls wearing skirts so short they needed two hairdos. Coke was everywhere i was young. Why should i suffer for the rest of my life while assholes like the mayor of washington gets caught smoking crack on camera and keeps his job? Michale irving, darrell strawberry, hell even bush said he tried coke.

If they pardon all drug felonies after 15 years and stop piss testing taco bell employees that alone will put millions of people back in the job market.

Now as far as weed goes? I have been around drugs since i was 8 years old i used to watch my dad shoot heroin with his army buddies while listening to jimmy hendrix and i know i would rather had seen him smoke weed and watch tv all day than to be out robbing banks to support his habit. You don't know what it's like not knowing if there will be a tv in the living room every morning.

I have seen people who stop smoking weed they start to act strange, take bigzax for example. The guy used to be funny and even did some stand up but his wife talked him out of smoking weed now he is not funny he never comes over my place, and he is seeing a doctor for depression. Now he is talking a shit load of pills just to be the way he was when he smoked weed.

You notice all the 420 smoke outs there is never any violence? How about you have a jack daniels day and have 10 thousand people meet at a park drinking jack and coke four hours and tell me how many fights you have during the event.

Tell me how many dui's and how many cars are wrapped around trees and telephone poles that night. How many wives get beat up. How many young girls get raped.

I am at the age where i don't give a fuck if they legalize it or not i am going to smoke weed in my home every chance i get, which reminds me who here has any to sell?

http://laist.com/attachments/la_anti/weedreview2.jpg

+1

Suns Fan

12-24-2009, 01:18 PM

I fully support the segregation of smokers and non-smokers. I get sick of being discriminated against by non-smokers. Seg-re-gate! Seg-re-gate!

Give us some examples of this discrimination?

admiralsnackbar

12-24-2009, 05:35 PM

In a word? "Yes"

And no, don't smoke pot.

benefactor

12-24-2009, 08:13 PM

Of course it should be legal...and I'm a Christian.

But as others have said, it will never be because our government makes too much money with it being illegal. Laws will relax at the state level, but that is about it.

Blue Jew

12-25-2009, 03:06 PM

I notice all these armchair quarterbacks when it comes to pot. everyone wants it to be legal but no one really wants to be the first to go out there and do something about it, maybe ruin their reputations or give others a wrong impression. It's hard to publicly support weed without the dirty looks from the tax paying law abiding citizen,

It reminds me of dodge ball back in the 70s everyone wants to play but no one wants to be the first to go out there and grab a ball

http://www.insidesocal.com/tomhoffarth/dodge%20ball.jpg

Blue Jew

12-25-2009, 03:32 PM

We just lost another pool hall here due to the smoking ban. They were in a tight strip center and didn't have the ability to build a patio.

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/1450/052387firingsquad.gif

Blake

12-27-2009, 12:40 AM

You rightly doubt it.

I readily understand banning smoking in private establishments that are open to the general public, regardless of age, etc. Places like an airplane, bus, restaurant, etc.

But adult establishments should not be subject to such a ban. The owner should set his own criteria. If there is such a large market for non-smoking bars, as in Austin as mentioned by WH, then so be it.

But we as a nation cater to the weakest who by virtue are the loudest. It would seem as soon as one has the majority, it truly rules...even though our system of government was specifically designed to protect the minority from the majority.

Define adult establishment.

Blake

12-27-2009, 12:41 AM

Blake

12-27-2009, 12:43 AM

Obviously they didn't make it to Feb.

there's no proof that it's because of the smoking ban.

why do you want to go this route again? you already lost once with it.

whottt

12-27-2009, 04:11 AM

there's no proof that it's because of the smoking ban.

why do you want to go this route again? you already lost once with it.

Of course it was because of the smoking ban, why the hell do you think it had to be an enforced ban?

If smoking wasn't popular in bars and good for business, the bars wouldn't have allowed it in the first place.

If someone wants to have their bar be a smoking bar they should be allowed to do so. No one forces the non-smokers to go into a smoking bar. It's the non-smokers that force the smokers to go into non-smoking bars by refusing to allow smoking bars.

If not smoking in bars is so fucking popular, then how come they had to ban smoking?

Fucking Nazis.

Blake

12-28-2009, 01:56 AM

Of course it was because of the smoking ban, why the hell do you think it had to be an enforced ban?

because some bar owners and other ignorant people like yourself would rather blame the smoking ban than other economic factors for the bar closing.

If smoking wasn't popular in bars and good for business, the bars wouldn't have allowed it in the first place.

Smoking was allowed everywhere in the not so distant past and restaurant owners used to make the same claims of losing business that bar owners like this are.

If second hand smoke wasn't considered to be a health hazard, there would not be much of a good reason to ban it.

If someone wants to have their bar be a smoking bar they should be allowed to do so. No one forces the non-smokers to go into a smoking bar. It's the non-smokers that force the smokers to go into non-smoking bars by refusing to allow smoking bars.

I myself don't have a problem with smoking bars such as cigar bars even though they are being hit with smoking bans as well in places up north.

I think most normal reasoning people have a problem with second hand smoke in pool halls, bowling alleys and sports bars where smoking was allowed because it was legal and because of indifference by the owner.

If not smoking in bars is so fucking popular, then how come they had to ban smoking?

Because second hand smoke has been deemed a health hazard by the surgeon general of the US.

Some clueless bar owners and other ignorants like yourself still seem to unaware of this.

I honestly hope you try to throw out some benefits of inhaling second hand smoke......since you have made it clear how good you think first hand smoking is for you.

Fucking Nazis.

Fucking selfish non-smokers that want cleaner air to breathe.

whottt

12-28-2009, 02:17 AM

because some bar owners and other ignorant people like yourself would rather blame the smoking ban than other economic factors for the bar closing.

Smoking was allowed everywhere in the not so distant past and restaurant owners used to make the same claims of losing business that bar owners like this are.

If second hand smoke wasn't considered to be a health hazard, there would not be much of a good reason to ban it.

I myself don't have a problem with smoking bars such as cigar bars even though they are being hit with smoking bans as well in places up north.

I think most normal reasoning people have a problem with second hand smoke in pool halls, bowling alleys and sports bars where smoking was allowed because it was legal and because of indifference by the owner.

Because second hand smoke has been deemed a health hazard by the surgeon general of the US.

Some clueless bar owners and other ignorants like yourself still seem to unaware of this.

I honestly hope you try to throw out some benefits of inhaling second hand smoke......since you have made it clear how good you think first hand smoking is for you.

Fucking selfish non-smokers that want cleaner air to breathe.

Fucking ignorant Nazi non-smokers, too fucking stupid to...

A. not go in a restaurant in which smoking is allowed.
B. start a non-smoking restaurant of their own free will to cater to co-depenent non-smokers like yourself.

I pay the price because you are too fucking stupid to not go into a smoking bar, or start a non-smoking restaurant or bar.

Why do you suppose restaurant owners and bar owners are indifferent? Surely there are some non-smokers with that same retarded sense of personal liberty, that is actually extreme co-dependence of an extremly pussy degree, that see the potential for capturing a non-smoking clientele....I mean surely all co-dependent non-smokers aren't too stupid to open a non-smoking restaurant without a government mandate?

I guess they are...otherwise the ban wouldn't be needed.

Any society that caters to it's stupidest most helpless, co-dependent and clueless segment is one that is going in the wrong direction.

Luckily for me, many bars completely shit on that non-smoking ordinance. The ones with good business in fact. :smokin

Blake

12-28-2009, 03:03 AM

Fucking ignorant Nazi non-smokers, too fucking stupid to...

A. not go in a restaurant in which smoking is allowed.
B. start a non-smoking restaurant of their own free will to cater to co-depenent non-smokers like yourself.

I pay the price because you are too fucking stupid to not go into a smoking bar, or start a non-smoking restaurant or bar.

Why do you suppose restaurant owners and bar owners are indifferent? Surely there are some non-smokers with that same retarded sense of personal liberty, that is actually extreme co-dependence of an extremly pussy degree, that see the potential for capturing a non-smoking clientele....I mean surely all co-dependent non-smokers aren't too stupid to open a non-smoking restaurant without a government mandate?

I guess they are...otherwise the ban wouldn't be needed.

Any society that caters to it's stupidest most helpless, co-dependent and clueless segment is one that is going in the wrong direction.

Luckily for me, many bars completely shit on that non-smoking ordinance. The ones with good business in fact. :smokin

Now that second hand smoke is seen as a hazard to most everyone but you, it has gone beyond the rights of what someone such as an average restaurant owner should be able to allow.

whottt

12-28-2009, 03:12 AM

Now that second hand smoke is seen as a hazard to most everyone but you, it has gone beyond the rights of what someone such as an average restaurant owner should be able to allow.

Bullshit...don't go in the fucking restaurant if you don't want to be around smoke.

You know what? You getting a car and drving it pollutes the air hypocrite. It's not necessary, you need to buy an electric car. And I don't give a shit about the economics of it...much like you do not give a shit about the economic of it for restaurant and bar owners.

IF you drive a car, you are polluting the air of those that don't.

Walk the walk bitch.

Full of shit...Nazi.

jacobdrj

12-28-2009, 03:17 AM

I don't understand why it isn't treated like any other drug. All drugs are addictive, to some extent. It is how they are used that determine their health benefits, and a Doctor should be the one making those decisions, not some politician.

Winehole23

12-28-2009, 03:28 AM

Same as the logic behind the trans fat ban in NYC. Shouldn't your morning McD's be outlawed using the same reasoning, Blake?

jacobdrj

12-28-2009, 03:31 AM

I would love to see what would happen if NY banned saturated fat. The city would starve...

Blake

12-28-2009, 03:53 AM

Bullshit...don't go in the fucking restaurant if you don't want to be around smoke.

bullshit...second hand smoke is a health hazard.

I'd rather just slap you in the face in the restaurant when you pull out your stogee. If you don't want to be around second hand face slapping, don't go in the fucking restaurant.

You know what? You getting a car and drving it pollutes the air hypocrite. It's not necessary, you need to buy an electric car. And I don't give a shit about the economics of it...much like you do not give a shit about the economic of it for restaurant and bar owners.

IF you drive a car, you are polluting the air of those that don't.

Walk the walk bitch.

Full of shit...Nazi.

electric cars being greener than gas cars is debatable, but that's besides the point.

I'm with you on how driving a car pollutes the air. I wish I could get around it on my own and make the world a greener place.

Hopefully one day the government puts a ban on driving polluting cars so we can all walk your bitch walk.

Until then kicking you and your smoking ass outside is a decent start.

....and for the record, the economics have been just fine for restaurant and bar owners after smoking bans have been implemented.

Blake

12-28-2009, 03:57 AM

jacobdrj

12-28-2009, 04:00 AM

you think I should get a prescription for my Tecate or my Patron too?

Last time I checked, Alcoholic Beverages are regulated in the US, not forbidden, just regulated. And yes, I think there are those that should be prescribed alcohol, particularly those with high cholesterol and people at risk of heart disease should get some red-wine in their systems, about 1 serving a day.

It shouldn't be abused, addiction is a real problem. But to make it illegal outright just creates more problems.

greyforest

12-28-2009, 04:02 AM

jacobdrj

12-28-2009, 04:07 AM

i have an idea

restaurants and bars for smokers that want to smoke and for people who dont care about smoke

restaurants and bars for non smokers who dont want second hand smoke

two mutually exclusive groups - why should one be universally catered to and the other banned?

It has to do with the cooks/waiters/workers working there, not the patrons or the owner. Selfishly, I am happy that smoking has been banned from restaurants in MI, and according to some owners, it will be good simply because it levels the playing field between what were once smoking/non-smoking establishments (Chris Chellios himself, owner of Chelli's Chilly, was pushing for this). However, I theologically dislike this law because it infringes on the property rights of the owner. Despite my loathing of smoking and my belief in 'workers' rights' I can't in good conscience justify removal of the rights of the owners.

Blake

12-28-2009, 04:10 AM

Same as the logic behind the trans fat ban in NYC. Shouldn't your morning McD's be outlawed using the same reasoning, Blake?

honestly, I just know a surface amount of the problems with trans fat. Has it been considered a poison yet?

Of course, if I sit in a McD's, I can eat a salad and drink water and not worry about someone else's second hand trans fat.

Blake

12-28-2009, 04:12 AM

Last time I checked, Alcoholic Beverages are regulated in the US, not forbidden, just regulated. And yes, I think there are those that should be prescribed alcohol, particularly those with high cholesterol and people at risk of heart disease should get some red-wine in their systems, about 1 serving a day.

It shouldn't be abused, addiction is a real problem. But to make it illegal outright just creates more problems.

ah hell......you're talking about the OP.

I thought we were all moved on to tobacky.

Winehole23

12-28-2009, 04:23 AM

honestly, I just know a surface amount of the problems with trans fat. Has it been considered a poison yet?It's illegal for any restaurant to serve food containing trans fats in NYC. I don't think they're considered a poison.

Of course, if I sit in a McD's, I can eat a salad and drink water and not worry about someone else's second hand trans fat.You could, but you don't. I do see your point though.

Blake

12-28-2009, 04:23 AM

jacobdrj

12-28-2009, 04:24 AM

whottt

12-28-2009, 04:24 AM

bullshit...second hand smoke is a health hazard.

I'd rather just slap you in the face in the restaurant when you pull out your stogee. If you don't want to be around second hand face slapping, don't go in the fucking restaurant.

Ahh but you see, that's not your restaurant. It's someone else. Someone else that when given his own choice, chose to let me smoke..

Someone that is clearly telling you, hey? You don't like my place?

Go somewhere fucking else.

You fucking Nazi.

It's not your fucking restaurant do you get that?

You do not have right to go in there and dictate what the owners can and cannot do.

It's not your business, you did not start it, you did not pay for it, you do not own it. You are not responsible for makiing it successful, if it fails, you will not be the one who suffers from it.

You do not have to go in there and eat. No one is making you do it.

electric cars being greener than gas cars is debatable, but that's besides the point.

Ride a fucking bike then.

Leave for work earlier.

Don't work far away from your house.

IOW why don't you change your own life before you go around changing eveyrone else you stupid fucking piece of shit dick.

And why do you need the government to do it for you? Dumbass.

It's not your fucking restaurant/bar ...do you fucking understand thaT?

I'm with you on how driving a car pollutes the air. I wish I could get around it on my own and make the world a greener place.

Don't insult me by telling me you are with me on anything. You are not with me on anything.

You understand nothing about individual rights, you are a fascist Nazi and I most certainly am not.

Hopefully one day the government puts a ban on driving polluting cars so we can all walk your bitch walk.

Hopefully, we'll outlaw stupid people, the true hazard to everyone's health.

Drinking alcohol is a health hazzard, why don't we just outlaw bars hypocrite?

Being a fucking lardass is a burden on the taxpayer and health hazard?

Why don't we just outlaw being a lardass?

People having too many kids is a burden on the taxpayer? Why don't we just outlaw having too many kids?

Until then kicking you and your smoking ass outside is a decent start.

....and for the record, the economics have been just fine for restaurant and bar owners after smoking bans have been implemented.

The non-dumbass FAIR solution is to let bars and resturants choose to be either smoking or non-smoking.

You and your anti-American Nazi fucking ilk are too stupiid to realize that.

You and your Nazi fuckiong ilk are too fucking stupid to even see the economic potential over the choice.

You're just a fucking Nazi, who doesn't give a shit about individual rights. You are the one imposing on others.

jacobdrj

12-28-2009, 04:27 AM

when there were no smoking bans, I don't recall any smoke free restaurants. I guess there might have been one or two.

It seemed that way, but isn't that the fault of the restaurants themselves for not having the guts to advertise a family friendly non-smoking environment? A smart Restaurantor would have made that a selling point.

Winehole23

12-28-2009, 04:27 AM

when there were no smoking bans, I don't recall any smoke free restaurants. I guess there might have been one or two.We had more than a few here in Austin.

Blake

12-28-2009, 04:28 AM

It's illegal for any restaurant to serve food containing trans fats in NYC.

Has it been considered a poison by any doctor or scientist of note?

You could, but you don't. I do see your point though.

I do try to watch for it and avoid it if possible.

whottt

12-28-2009, 04:29 AM

It seemed that way, but isn't that the fault of the restaurants themselves for not having the guts to advertise a family friendly non-smoking environment? A smart Restaurantor would have made that a selling point.

They are obviously too stupid to do that. The non-smokers I mean.

Blake

12-28-2009, 04:30 AM

It seemed that way, but isn't that the fault of the restaurants themselves for not having the guts to advertise a family friendly non-smoking environment? A smart Restaurantor would have made that a selling point.

back then, we all weren't really aware of just how dangerous second hand smoke is. The smart restaurantors simply divided the sections into smoking and non-smoking.

Blake

12-28-2009, 04:32 AM

They are obviously too stupid to do that. The non-smokers I mean.

obviously there aren't many smart restaurantors. It's really a shame that a smoking ban is needed.

Blake

12-28-2009, 04:34 AM

Lol, I gathered that. But my point is consistent throughout. I don't like the inconsistencies between tobacco and marijuana. Both are have pros and cons, and a person should have the option to take each per their own needs.

I absolutely don't like the inconsistencies and the reasoning they keep giving as to why marijuana is illegal.

whottt

12-28-2009, 04:37 AM

back then, we all weren't really aware of just how dangerous second hand smoke is. The smart restaurantors simply divided the sections into smoking and non-smoking.

We're smart enough now...so why was the choice taken away?

Because of Nazi fucking dumbasses, that is why.

whottt

12-28-2009, 04:39 AM

obviously there aren't many smart restaurantors. It's really a shame that a smoking ban is needed.

But you see, the ban wasn't needed. The non-smokers were, and are, too stupid to open a restaurant for non-smokers. That's why the ban is needed, because the non-smokers are ignorant Nazi idiots, incapable of not going into a restaurant that allows smoking, incapable of opening a non-smoking restaurant.

jacobdrj

12-28-2009, 04:41 AM

We're smart enough now...so why was the choice taken away?

Because of Nazi fucking dumbasses, that is why.
Again, it isn't a customer issue. The law is a worker safety/worker's rights issue. At least, that was the justification here when the law was passed in MI a couple weeks ago.

And restaurants getting more business after the bans (which were the trend in NY IIRC) was just an unforeseen benefit to the owners, and an unfortunate property right removed from the owner.

jacobdrj

12-28-2009, 04:44 AM

But you see, the ban wasn't needed. The non-smokers were, and are, too stupid to open a restaurant for non-smokers. That's why the ban is needed, because the non-smokers are ignorant Nazi idiots, incapable of not going into a restaurant that allows smoking, incapable of opening a non-smoking restaurant.

As I was saying before from the instance of chris chelios (a non smoking NHL player) it was a fear that your competitor would have the edge if you banned smoking. But the reality is that the fear was unjustified, at least in the case of NY.

whottt

12-28-2009, 04:44 AM

greyforest

12-28-2009, 04:47 AM

It has to do with the cooks/waiters/workers working there, not the patrons or the owner.

don't the cooks/waiters/workers have the ability to choose either a smoking or non-smoking establishment to work at?

i don't see where my scenario has any flaws. there are markets for both types of establishments.

Blake

12-28-2009, 04:48 AM

Ahh but you see, that's not your restaurant. It's someone else. Someone else that when given his own choice, chose to let me smoke..

Someone that is clearly telling you, hey? You don't like my place?

Go somewhere fucking else.

You fucking Nazi.

It's not your fucking restaurant do you get that?

You do not have right to go in there and dictate what the owners can and cannot do.

It's not your business, you did not start it, you did not pay for it, you do not own it. You are not responsible for makiing it successful, if it fails, you will not be the one who suffers from it.

You do not have to go in there and eat. No one is making you do it.

faceslap

Ride a fucking bike then.

no can do.

Leave for work earlier.

done.

Don't work far away from your house.

ok.

IOW why don't you change your own life before you go around changing eveyrone else you stupid fucking piece of shit dick.

And why do you need the government to do it for you? Dumbass.

Those are good ideas. I also like that government is telling manufacturers to make more efficient cars. Do you?

It's not your fucking restaurant/bar ...do you fucking understand thaT?

/face slap

Don't insult me by telling me you are with me on anything. You are not with me on anything.

You understand nothing about individual rights, you are a fascist Nazi and I most certainly am not.

nah. You just blew a whiff of harmful smoke in my face. It's not that far from assault.

Hopefully, we'll outlaw stupid people, the true hazard to everyone's health.

Drinking alcohol is a health hazzard, why don't we just outlaw bars hypocrite?

hazzard? Get them Duke boys.

Second hand drunk doesn't effect anyone directly in the bar, dumbass.

Being a fucking lardass is a burden on the taxpayer and health hazard?

Why don't we just outlaw being a lardass?

you being a fucking lardass does not affect my health.

People having too many kids is a burden on the taxpayer? Why don't we just outlaw having too many kids?

you having too many kids does not affect my health.

The non-dumbass FAIR solution is to let bars and resturants choose to be either smoking or non-smoking.

//face slap

You and your anti-American Nazi fucking ilk are too stupiid to realize that.

You and your Nazi fuckiong ilk are too fucking stupid to even see the economic potential over the choice.

post smoking ban economics have shown many favorable results even if you are too stupiid to realize that.

You're just a fucking Nazi, who doesn't give a shit about individual rights. You are the one imposing on others.

///face slap

whottt

12-28-2009, 05:19 AM

faceslap

no can do.

done.

ok.

Those are good ideas. I also like that government is telling manufacturers to make more efficient cars. Do you?

/face slap

nah. You just blew a whiff of harmful smoke in my face. It's not that far from assault.

hazzard? Get them Duke boys.

Second hand drunk doesn't effect anyone directly in the bar, dumbass.

you being a fucking lardass does not affect my health.

you having too many kids does not affect my health.

//face slap

post smoking ban economics have shown many favorable results even if you are too stupiid to realize that.

///face slap

You do not have the right to slap me because it not your business. You bigoted, nazi.

Nazi, bigot, piece of shit.

You do not have more rights than me, or a business owner, because you are non-smoker. You fucking bigot.

It is not the same thing. You see, the owner welcomes smokers, that is his perogative, it is not yours to go into his business and tell him, or me, what we can or cannot do.

It's your perogative to fuck off and go find a place where smoking is not allowed and then be offended when people smoke.

Blake, you going into a smoking establishment and being offended is like me going to a retard convention and being suprised to see you there.

jochhejaam

12-28-2009, 07:42 AM

Of course it should be legal...and I'm a Christian.

Jesus Christ endorses smoking pot?

whottt

12-28-2009, 08:49 AM

Jesus Christ endorses smoking pot?

A Catholic Archbishop with a PHD:

http://www.honoluluasa.org/cannabis_religion.htm

And I'll toss in my own contribution from Acts 10:

The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

I'll toss in another one for emphasis from Genesis 1:29

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

God made weed, man makes all the other shit we put into our bodies. You are calling what God made unclean, you are putting man above God.

God and Jesus did not make it illegal, Napoleon first did, and then about 70-80 years ago a group of MEN came along and made it illgeal here. Man, not God. It is not illegal because of the will of God or Jesus, it is illegal because of the will of men.

You cannot find a single reference to God or Jesus saying don't smoke pot, don't use it. You can only point to your own interpretation and that of other men. You cannot point to the word of God or Jesus to back your claim and because there is not specificity, you cannot claim the Bible is on your side.

So why did ya'll try to?

whottt

12-28-2009, 08:59 AM

In fact the only negative references to drugs or intoxication are made in reference to man made ones...both alcohol, and drugs(sorcery or pharmacology)

What does our society do now? Gods plants are illegal, but our drugs we make are not.

That is not the will of God, he clearly says, on page 2 of the bible, if I made it, it's there for you to use. And every other anti-drug reference he or Jesus makes is to man-made ones, not the ones he made.

In fact he's quite fond of the plants he made, including marijuana. so much so that he himself told Moses to put it into the oil used to annoint Prophets, Kings and Messiahs, at least according to the Talmud.

It's also a fact it was used by Hebrew women of antiquity during child birth. That is God's plant...yet man can come along and make a pill from it and say this is ok, the plant is not...and so many so devoted to the word of God will directly contradict his most basic statement...

That if he made it, it is good, and it is there for you to use. It's the crap we make that comes with the warnings.

jochhejaam

12-28-2009, 02:27 PM

A Catholic Archbishop with a PHD:

http://www.honoluluasa.org/cannabis_religion.htm

That hardly passes as Jesus Christ endorsing marijuana use, and by the term “use” I’m referring to “recreational use”.

Let’s clarify the position of the Catholic Church;

"The Catholic Church says that drugs "constitute direct co-operation in evil" and does not seem to make exceptions for marijuana. The Vatican has condemned legalizing "soft drugs" like marijuana, and its newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, recently scolded Italian lawmakers for liberalizing pot-possession laws"

And I'll toss in my own contribution from Acts 10:

The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

Off the Charts out of context whottt, you have tortured these scriptures beyond recognition (you are aware of that), this message was a direct reference to the fact that God’s salvation through Jesus Christ was meant not only for Jews, but for all who would accept it.
To suggest that you can use these passages to justify smoking is nothing less that a Biblical misrepresentation of epic proportion.

I'll toss in another one for emphasis from Genesis 1:29

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Heroin comes from the opium poppy plant (an herb too), does Christ also endorse it’s recreational use? (He doesn’t)

God made weed, man makes all the other shit we put into our bodies. You are calling what God made unclean, you are putting man above God.
Nonsensical hyperbole, I’m merely saying that the recreational use of drugs is not supported by the tenets of Christianity, and you are light years from having had presented an argument to the contrary.

You cannot find a single reference to God or Jesus saying don't smoke pot, don't use it. You can only point to your own interpretation and that of other men. You cannot point to the word of God or Jesus to back your claim and because there is not specificity, you cannot claim the Bible is on your side.

Christians are to be sober minded (scriptural), and inducing mind altering drugs for the fun of it is contrary to that.
The effects of marijuana cannot be reconciled with being of sober mind;
Effects of use in moderation;
-disruption of attention
-reduction of coordination
-sense of time and space are altered

Effects of heavy use;
-hallucinations
-memory dysfunction
-disorientation and delusions

Quite contrary to picture of being a sober-minded Christian

If you are strictly a supporter of marijuana use for medicinal purposes only, and that under the care of a physician, then I’m fine with that, if you support the casual use of it, and believe that Christianity should too, then we are at odds (and you are incorrect).

It’s a free Country, and I don’t care that people support it’s legalization (I work in Federally subsidized Housing, there's rarely a day when I'm not in a unit where it's being used. It does't faze me), I do take exception to those few who would suggest that Christianity is supportive of it.
If you want to use it, do so, but Christian’s have no business trying to rationalize it’s use through scripture, it’s not there. For “Christian” users the correct position is that they should acknowledge that they are struggling with a sin (a daily occurrence).

BacktoBasics

12-28-2009, 02:47 PM

there's no proof that it's because of the smoking ban.

why do you want to go this route again? you already lost once with it.The proof is in the amount of pool halls that have gone under. 5 and counting. Each of them went from a solid business to a mess in less than a year. The big one "Paradise Billiards" is struggling pretty bad right now. Clicks as well. Both of those owners have publicly attacked the smoking ban. Each business has specifically sited the ban as a major contributing factor in loss of revenue. 4 of those pool halls have open their books up to the public so they can see for themselves. Are they just making this up? Did they photoshop the numbers? Its pretty obvious.

If its not the smoking ban and these business thrived in a shitty economy a year ago why are they now going under? Is this all a coincidence? 11 places of business, and I know its more, have gone under this year. Each of them have been in business in excess of 8 years here and some much longer. Each one of them were targets of the recent smoking ban in bars, pool halls, bingo parlors and bowling alley's. Each of them went under less than a year after the ban. Its not just a coincidence. The numbers state that as a city even in its entirety is down over 15% in alcohol sales.

I'm pro the smoking ban but not in any establishment that is 21 and up. Adults only. Everyone was on board with the ban until they added the bars and pool halls. Unnecessary bullshit.

I really don't know what further proof you require. How many businesses need to go under with their owners pointing to the revenue post ban? My guess is that it doesn't matter to you because 90 businesses could go under and each of them could blame the smoking ban and each of them could provide proof of down revenue and you wouldn't buy any of it. Because you're a fucking moron.

BacktoBasics

12-28-2009, 02:56 PM

Ok so if everyone knows the evil of smoking and the benefit of non-smoking establishments, why is the ban still needed?

Obviously, it was brilliant and now everyone knows what they didn't know then...so there should be no need for a ban.

So why is there still one?

I mean, we know the dangers now...having a no smoking establishment actually helps business(at least in NY)...so why is the ban needed?
The ban is needed to protect the ones that can't protect themselves. IE children. A child can't refuse entry in to a restaurant that allows smoking. His parents forced him/her to enter. The banning of smoking protects children from their own ignorant parents or guardians.

To ban smoking in an over 21 establishment blows my mind. No one is forced to enter an over 21 bar against their own will. A kids at the grocery store, restaurant or mall I can understand.

Everything was fine until they attacked the bars and pool halls. That's when the revenue hit rock bottom here. Blake thinks they're just making shit up to cover for a bad business model but the reality is that there are too many going under...too many adult only establishments hurt by this.

greyforest

12-28-2009, 03:10 PM

A child can't refuse entry in to a restaurant that allows smoking. His parents forced him/her to enter. The banning of smoking protects children from their own ignorant parents or guardians.

parents can force their kids to be in the sun with no sunscreen too, a situation exactly analogous to yours. i'm all for protecting children from negligent parents, but this is a broad, sweeping regulation that doesn't pinpoint this specific scenario.

BacktoBasics

12-28-2009, 03:37 PM

parents can force their kids to be in the sun with no sunscreen too, a situation exactly analogous to yours. i'm all for protecting children from negligent parents, but this is a broad, sweeping regulation that doesn't pinpoint this specific scenario.I won't disagree with that. Ultimately there should be no smoking ban. Period. It infringes on personal property rights and the rights of the business owner.

Most business owners, at least here in Corpus, were willing to concede some of the ban. Public places including restaurants. Even though some went under, like Crystals who went under after a very public battle. Then they went and attacked all the over 21 places. Too far. They should have never given an inch to begin with.

whottt

12-29-2009, 08:59 AM

That hardly passes as Jesus Christ endorsing marijuana use, and by the term “use” I’m referring to “recreational use”.

Let’s clarify the position of the Catholic Church;

"The Catholic Church says that drugs "constitute direct co-operation in evil" and does not seem to make exceptions for marijuana. The Vatican has condemned legalizing "soft drugs" like marijuana, and its newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, recently scolded Italian lawmakers for liberalizing pot-possession laws"

The position of the Catholic Church can and does change.

Off the Charts out of context whottt, you have tortured these scriptures beyond recognition (you are aware of that), this message was a direct reference to the fact that God’s salvation through Jesus Christ was meant not only for Jews, but for all who would accept it.

That quote has nothing to with the fact that God's salvation through Jesus Christ was meant only for Jews but all who would accept it.

The entire passage:

9 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; 11 and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 12 and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. 13 A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” 15 Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” 16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.

There is nothing metaphorical about that particular passage. It's a very literal statement from God. About a very specific incident.

The next passage contains the metaphor of which you speak. And I believe you are still interpreting to your own views, not the actual context.

To suggest that you can use these passages to justify smoking is nothing less that a Biblical misrepresentation of epic proportion.

You keep saying smoking...you do realize you don't have to smoke pot to get high from it.

You do realize it has nutritional value as a food source and you can survive by consuming it?

In fact, it's one of the most perfectly balanced food sources there is.

Heroin comes from the opium poppy plant (an herb too), does Christ also endorse it’s recreational use? (He doesn’t)

Both the words of God and Jesus make very specific WARNINGS, not condemnations, of both alcohol and sorcery and more importantly addictions. Physical addictions. And the only condemnation made of the two is against excess, which applies to any and everything else as well, including eating.

The process by which Opium is derived from the poppyseed most definitely qualifies as sorcery. As do most methods of distilling alcohol. And they are both addictive.

You eat Poppies in their natural form and they do not addict you or impair you, they don't even get you high really unless they are young.

The process of getting high from marijuana most certainly is not sorcery. It's not sorcery. You can simply pick it up and eat and it and it will get you high.

No alteration, right there as god made it. As much as you want, without dying, and it's not physically addictive either.

Nonsensical hyperbole, I’m merely saying that the recreational use of drugs is not supported by the tenets of Christianity, and you are light years from having had presented an argument to the contrary.

And I'd say the root of all recreational drug use is a spiritual pursuit in nature, whether anyone realizes it or not. I'd also say just about all recreational drug use is a medicinal pursuit as well.

At the root of all drug use is not the intent to enhance the flesh, it's to escape the limits of it.

Christians are to be sober minded (scriptural), and inducing mind altering drugs for the fun of it is contrary to that.

Wrong. Sober means from drink. Period.

The warning of the bible and Jesus consistently and specficially mention alcohol by name, and sorcery(pharmacology) the drugs made by man.

There is not a single reference or warning in the bible against using things god made in their natural state.

Sober means free from drink, it does not mean free from being stoned. Being stoned most certainly is not being drunk. And in fact the bible even says alcohol and man-made drugs have their place...so if they have their place, pretty obviously the ones made by God do.

The effects of marijuana cannot be reconciled with being of sober mind;
Oh yes they can, because being sober has absolutely nothing to do with being free from the effects of marijuana, and 100% to do with being free from the effects of alcohol.

By the way, I'd appreciate direct quotes from you for the basis of your opinions, as I have given to you.

Effects of use in moderation;
-disruption of attention
-reduction of coordination
-sense of time and space are altered

Would you like me to list the effects of sugar and caffeine in moderation?

Effects of heavy use;
-hallucinations
-memory dysfunction
-disorientation and delusions

Quite contrary to picture of being a sober-minded Christian

Absolutely false, sober means being free from the effects of drinking, not the effects of marijuana.

Please show me the quote so that I may challenge it directly.

These are just your words, whereas as I use the words of God directly.

If you are strictly a supporter of marijuana use for medicinal purposes only, and that under the care of a physician, then I’m fine with that, if you support the casual use of it, and believe that Christianity should too, then we are at odds (and you are incorrect).

Well I can go into a church and be given alcohol, for non-medicinal use.

It’s a free Country, and I don’t care that people support it’s legalization (I work in Federally subsidized Housing, there's rarely a day when I'm not in a unit where it's being used. It does't faze me), I do take exception to those few who would suggest that Christianity is supportive of it.
If you want to use it, do so, but Christian’s have no business trying to rationalize it’s use through scripture, it’s not there. For “Christian” users the correct position is that they should acknowledge that they are struggling with a sin (a daily occurrence).

Oh well you see, I actually believe the main reason so many relgions, in particular christianity, have been totally fucked up, twisted, abused and used for some of the most unholy acts of cruelty and tyranny in the history of man, directly relates to the dismissal of a plant clearly named by the Christian God as a Holy Sacrament.

As I said, the first person in the history of Western Civilization to outlaw it, was Napoleon Bonaparte, a man believed by some to be an anti-christ.

whottt

12-29-2009, 10:29 AM

Fact:
Christ means the annoited one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

Fact:
Chrism has the same etymology and means annointing oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrism

Fact:
The recipe for chrism was given directly from God to Moses. And contains over 6lbs of cannabis.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+30&version=NKJV

Fact:
The recipe in it's original form is both a powerful healer and a powerful psychotropic drug.

And finally

Fact:
Jesus most certainly was annointed with that oil according to the Hewbrew recipe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anointing_of_Jesus

Fact: Jesus told his disciples to use that oil on the sick and posessed(and one could argue all recreational drug users have a few demons).

I give you Mark 3:16
http://niv.scripturetext.com/mark/6.htm

Jesus Sends Out the Twelve

Then Jesus went around teaching from village to village. 7Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evilb spirits.

8These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. 9Wear sandals but not an extra tunic. 10Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. 11And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.”

12They went out and preached that people should repent. 13They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them.

There is your advocacy. I have now shown you substantially more evidence that the words of God and Jesus both advocated it's use, by what generally conidered to be direct references to the plant according to the Hewbrew language, than you have shown me to the contrary.

Whereas you cannot provide me with a single instance of them naming the plant and saying it should not be used.

You can find references to alcohol, and to man made drugs(socery), you cannot find one with even an alleged direct reference to marijuana.

The fact that you put this plant in the same sentence as opium, or perhaps consider it to be the exact same thing as cocaine or alcohol...proves to me you really don't understand what I am trying to say when I claim one is made by God, and the others are made by man.

Simply put: One will get you high simply be eating it. The others are mainly man made concentrations of plant alkaloids.

They should not be lumped together, they do not have the same origin. They are not the same.

I'm not a Christian as you likely define the term, I'm not going to claim to speak for God...but I will say I do have some Christian beliefs(just not all of them) and they are based upon what I consider to be the words of God, not the words of men interpreting his words for me. I see plenty of ample reasons why that should not be done by anyone.

The Franchise

12-29-2009, 01:11 PM

A better question is why hasn't it been legalized already?

jochhejaam

12-29-2009, 02:34 PM

The position of the Catholic Church can and does change. .

The Catholic Church, as previously stated, is against the recreational use of soft drugs, let us know if that changes. Until then, for arguments sake, you have no leg to stand on.

You keep saying smoking...you do realize you don't have to smoke pot to get high from it.
Immaterial, but sure I do (happy that we cleared that up?)

You do realize it has nutritional value as a food source and you can survive by consuming it?
So does the fluid of elephant dung (for those that like a drink with their pot), you were aware of that, weren't you?

In fact, it's one of the most perfectly balanced food sources there is.
Tastes like crap, and unpractical to think that you could/would ingest enough to live on.
Additionally, and more to the point of the discussion, it alters the natural function of the brain. For Christians, the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and is not to be intentionally abused (and I don't want to hear about how bad other edibles are for you, if they're unhealthy, they shouldn't be consumed either).

And I'd say the root of all recreational drug use is a spiritual pursuit in nature, whether anyone realizes it or not. I'd also say just about all recreational drug use is a medicinal pursuit as well.
B.S., for every Ricky Williams there are 50,000 doing it for the sole purpose of simply wanting to feel stoned (look up the percentage for yourself).

At the root of all drug use is not the intent to enhance the flesh, it's to escape the limits of it.
More commonly know as; "it's party time!"

Wrong. Sober means from drink. Period.

The warning of the bible and Jesus consistently and specficially mention alcohol by name, and sorcery(pharmacology) the drugs made by man.

Sober means free from drink, it does not mean free from being stoned. Being stoned most certainly is not being drunk. And in fact the bible even says alcohol and man-made drugs have their place...so if they have their place, pretty obviously the ones made by God do.
Sober, translated from the Greek as used in the New Testament;

Sober = Nepho - In the NT nepho is used only figuratively meaning to be free from every form of mental and spiritual "intoxication". The idea then is to be calm and collected in spirit, circumspect, self-controlled, well-balanced, clear headed. Be self-possessed (for believers a more accurate description would be "Spirit" possessed) under all circumstances. It speaks of exercising self-restraint (enabled by the Spirit) and being free from excess, from evil passion, from rashness, etc.

Oops!!

Oh yes they can, because being sober has absolutely nothing to do with being free from the effects of marijuana, and 100% to do with being free from the effects of alcohol. (and) Absolutely false, sober means being free from the effects of drinking, not the effects of marijuana.
(See Nepho) Oops!!
(Next time, do your homework).

Would you like me to list the effects of sugar and caffeine in moderation?
Knock yourself out.

Well I can go into a church and be given alcohol, for non-medicinal use.
Not at mine you wouldn't, and for those that serve a nominal amount in the form of communion, it certainly wouldn't have any mind altering affects (actually none) that a couple of drags on a joint would have.

As I said, the first person in the history of Western Civilization to outlaw it, was Napoleon Bonaparte, a man believed by some to be an anti-christ
Okay, you've already informed us that you are well-read on Napoleon, we caught that the first time.

For those that don't claim to serve Jesus Christ; agnostics, athiests, whatever, there are probably some valid reasons for legalizing mj, to each his own, but IMO, to drag Jesus Christ in as an advocate is tantamount to toeing the line of blasphemy (attributing the things of God to Satan and vice versa).
I don't know where you stand regarding Christianity (I may be incorrect, but you seemed to portray yourself as one when you had what you described as a near death experience 2-3 years ago).
If that's the case, perhaps you might want to back off a bit on the stand you've taken, as blasphemy is, according to Scripture, the only unforgivable sin.
(Consider that as no more than longsuffering, doctrinal exhortation).

greyforest

12-29-2009, 02:57 PM

Additionally, and more to the point of the discussion, it alters the natural function of the brain. For Christians, the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and is not to be intentionally abused (and I don't want to hear about how bad other edibles are for you, if they're unhealthy, they shouldn't be consumed either).

What is the stance on mood-altering pharmaceutical drugs such as SSRI's (Paxil, Prozac, etc), Methylphenidate (Ritalin), et al?

jochhejaam

12-29-2009, 04:26 PM

What is the stance on mood-altering pharmaceutical drugs such as SSRI's (Paxil, Prozac, etc), Methylphenidate (Ritalin), et al?

These drugs are FDA approved, and when administered under the care of a physician, are proven to be beneficial, so for medicinal purposes, not unlike medical mj, if it assists in the treatment of a disorder, use it.

Marcus Bryant

12-29-2009, 05:06 PM

whottt is correct.

whottt

12-29-2009, 10:28 PM

The Catholic Church, as previously stated, is against the recreational use of soft drugs, let us know if that changes. Until then, for arguments sake, you have no leg to stand on.

You're the one that brought up the Catholic Church, it was never part of my argument.

IOW, it was never a leg I was attempting to stand on.

I've be real wary of attempting to stand on the legs of the Catholic Church if I were you...because at one point the Cathlolic Church routinely tortured and murdered people in order to seize their property.

So does the fluid of elephant dung (for those that like a drink with their pot), you were aware of that, weren't you?

I'm aware that Elephant dung is excrement that comes out of Elephant's asshole and marijuana is a plant made by god, in fact mentioned by him.

And I am willing to bet my last dollar that you would prefer to consume Marijuana over Elephant Dung(or liquid made from it) if presented with the choice.

Why are you are attempting to claim there is no differnce?

Why can you not tell the difference between a plant made by God, and shit?

Tastes like crap,

Have you tasted it?

Even if you have...lots of stuff taste like shit. That doesn't mean it's bad for you.

and unpractical to think that you could/would ingest enough to live on.

100% False.

The Chinese made flower from marijuana seeds.

Additionally, and more to the point of the discussion, it alters the natural function of the brain. For Christians, the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and is not to be intentionally abused (and I don't want to hear about how bad other edibles are for you, if they're unhealthy, they shouldn't be consumed either).

On the contrary...there is nothing bad about consuming marijuana. It's totally healthy.

.

B.S., for every Ricky Williams there are 50,000 doing it for the sole purpose of simply wanting to feel stoned (look up the percentage for yourself).

More commonly know as; "it's party time!"

And that is definitely a spiritual pursuit, whether you realize it or not.

Sober, translated from the Greek as used in the New Testament;

Sober = Nepho - In the NT nepho is used only figuratively meaning to be free from every form of mental and spiritual "intoxication". The idea then is to be calm and collected in spirit, circumspect, self-controlled, well-balanced, clear headed. Be self-possessed (for believers a more accurate description would be "Spirit" possessed) under all circumstances. It speaks of exercising self-restraint (enabled by the Spirit) and being free from excess, from evil passion, from rashness, etc.

Oops!!

Ooops you say?

Definition of the word "nepho":

Abstinence

A. The Greek adjective nephalios and the verb nepho.

1. It is the joining of two words ne “not” and piein “drink”

Ooops.

By the way, I am enjoying your haughty and mocking attitude, reminds me of myself...

But I'm not the one claiming to be a Christian and in touch with God am I?

(See Nepho) Oops!!
(Next time, do your homework).

Already did, it means, not drink.

Knock yourself out.

Not at mine you wouldn't, and for those that serve a nominal amount in the form of communion, it certainly wouldn't have any mind altering affects (actually none) that a couple of drags on a joint would have.

And the effects of marijuana are different than the effects of alcohol.

They are not the same.

The effects of alcohol, in addition to being physically addicting, unlike marijuana, are pretty set.

The effects of marijuana vary.

Sometimes marijuana will make you laugh.
Sometimes it will make you anxious.
Sometimes it will make you depressed.
Sometime it will make you paranoid.
Sometimes if will make you question your ways, your own worth as a person and the way you are living your life.
Sometimes it allows you to focus your mind.
Sometimes it fill you with nothing but inhibition.
Sometimes, it provides anything but a recreational escape.

That is why I consider it to be very much a spiritual plant, as opposed to alcholol which does one thing first and foremost, it takes away inhibitions. That's the main thing it does.

Not the same.

For those that don't claim to serve Jesus Christ; agnostics, athiests, whatever, there are probably some valid reasons for legalizing mj

I am not an atheist or an agnostic.

to each his own, but IMO, to drag Jesus Christ in as an advocate is tantamount to toeing the line of blasphemy (attributing the things of God to Satan and vice versa).

Um, I'm not the one comparing a green herb and it's seed, referenced by God in the first book of the bible and many other thereafter, to Elephant shit.

That is you that did that.

I don't know where you stand regarding Christianity (I may be incorrect, but you seemed to portray yourself as one when you had what you described as a near death experience 2-3 years ago).
If that's the case, perhaps you might want to back off a bit on the stand you've taken, as blasphemy is, according to Scripture, the only unforgivable sin.
(Consider that as no more than longsuffering, doctrinal exhortation).

False. The unforgivable sin is blashpheming the Holy Spirit. Not God or Jesus.

And I don't believe I am blaspheming anything, I am simply aware of the way man has used religion and revised to meet his own ends(often anything but divine ends) throughout the course of history.

And you're the one that lumps marijuana in with Paxil(a drug and other drugs approved by the FDA). It's you that is failing to make the distinciton between God and Man.

And I would never claim to speak for God...however, if God has ever spoken to me, it most definitely was on the subject and distinction between the plants made by God, and the drugs made by man.

And I'm not just making this argument from a position ignorance, but from a great deal of research(spiritual and academic) and personal experience.

In closing I am going to again, walk past the interpretation of men...and use the words of God directly as spoken:

Genesis 1:11

'Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed,
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind,
which may have seed in itself upon the earth.
And it was so done.

Elephant shit indeed.

whottt

12-29-2009, 10:32 PM

These drugs are FDA approved, and when administered under the care of a physician, are proven to be beneficial, so for medicinal purposes, not unlike medical mj, if it assists in the treatment of a disorder, use it.

You lump marijuana in with Paxil and say I am the one attributing the works of God to Satan and vice versa?

Paxil is the very drug I was taking at the point I came to the positions I now have.

If I ever taken a drug that was created by Satan, and is wholly and irideemably evil, it is Paxil.

Trust me...you do God a great disservice by putting his plant in the same classification as Paxil.

They are most definitely not the same thing. God made marijuana period and it can be used in the form he made it. God did not make Paxil.

whottt

12-29-2009, 10:48 PM

I don't know where you stand regarding Christianity (I may be incorrect, but you seemed to portray yourself as one when you had what you described as a near death experience 2-3 years ago).

I believe the underlying message of Christianity is a good one. I also believe that message has been twisted and manipulated by men for their own material gain.

Here is what I believe:

Do I believe in God? Yes.

Do I believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God, died on the cross for our sins? Yes.

Do I believe the primary message of Jesus was one of forgiveness? Yes.

Do I believe accepting Jesus as your savior automatically makes you a divine saved person qaulified to lead and judge others according to your intepretation of his teachings? No I do not.

Do I believe being a Christian automatically means you are better than anyone else?

Hell no. In fact I think the message of Christianity is exactly the opposite of that.

Do I believe being a preacher automatically makes one trustworthy and chosen deliverer of the message of god? No I do not.

Do I believe Chritianity is the only religion worthy of God? No I do not.

There are people that have lived and died without ever being aware of Jesus or the Christian/Hewbrew God....so do they all of a sudden not count? They wll go to hell?

If that is the will of the God that created us, I want no part of him or any religion associated with him.

I don't believe that.

In fact I consider saying you believe something, just so you won't go to hell, and can say you are saved over others, to be an act of cowardice.

Furthermore, that are somthing like 500 different sects of Christianity, including some who consdier marijuana to an essential part of being a christian, all with differences and they believe those differences make them the right one, the chosen one...if even the Christians do not agree on what it means to be a Christian? How can anyone else?

The Jews are God's chosen people accoring to the Christian Bible, and they do not believe Jesus Christ was the savior.

And I have seen many many horrible outright evil acts commited by those claiming to be Christians and carrying out the will of God.

And finally, the Bible is full of contradictory messages, it has been translated many times, it has been appropriated by men who did so entirely for the purpose of matertial gain and power, that is something I keep in mind when interpreting it. Nothing said by a man, is taken as the absolute gospel by me.

If that's the case, perhaps you might want to back off a bit on the stand you've taken, as blasphemy is, according to Scripture, the only unforgivable sin.
(Consider that as no more than longsuffering, doctrinal exhortation).

Luke 6:
Judge not and ye shall not be judged.

Just so we know, I am not the one that considers his Father's plants akin to Elephant shit or a product of Satan when God clearly says he made EVERY PLANT and TREE on Earth in every version of the bible.

It's you that did that.

And once again, Acts 10:

Do not call anything impure that God has made clean

3rd time's the charm.

jochhejaam

12-30-2009, 12:47 AM

You're the one that brought up the Catholic Church, it was never part of my argument.

IOW, it was never a leg I was attempting to stand on.

I've be real wary of attempting to stand on the legs of the Catholic Church if I were you...because at one point the Cathlolic Church routinely tortured and murdered people in order to seize their property.
You presented an article written by a renegade Catholic Archbishop, I countered with the position of the Catholic Church (trumped). And you did put up a bit of resistance (“the position of the Catholic Church changes”), however weak it may have been. Thus your response (inept as it was) became part of your argument. Maybe you shouldn’t engage where you can’t make a valid point (your call).

I'm aware that Elephant dung is excrement that comes out of Elephant's asshole and marijuana is a plant made by god, in fact mentioned by him.

And I am willing to bet my last dollar that you would prefer to consume Marijuana over Elephant Dung(or liquid made from it) if presented with the choice.

Why are you are attempting to claim there is no differnce?
The point was that your citing nutritional value of a substance hardly qualifies as Christ’s endorsement for consumption. A wild conclusion, one that in no way qualifies as Jesus’ endorsing recreational use of marijuana (lest you forget, that was the thrust of my original question).

100% False.

The Chinese made flower from marijuana seeds.
Made, as in past tense, no one is making “flour” from marijuana seeds, so yes, it’s impractical.

On the contrary...there is nothing bad about consuming marijuana. It's totally healthy.
There is nothing healthy about having your memory retrieval inhibited, or in having your short term memory weakened (a couple of the effects the THC in mj has on the brain).

.

And that is definitely a spiritual pursuit, whether you realize it or not.

Call it whatever you wish, ask the people living in public housing, and they'll tell you they just like getting high, no spiritual end as an objective.

Ooops you say?

Definition of the word "nepho":
Ooops.

By the way, I am enjoying your haughty and mocking attitude, reminds me of myself...

Already did, it means, not drink.

Negative, again (and I won’t post it a third time), here is the definition of sober as translated from the word “nepho” as it pertains to the New Testament;

In the NT nepho is used only figuratively meaning to be free from every form of mental and spiritual "intoxication". The idea then is to be calm and collected in spirit, circumspect, self-controlled, well-balanced, clear headed. Be self-possessed (for believers a more accurate description would be "Spirit" possessed) under all circumstances. It speaks of exercising self-restraint (enabled by the Spirit) and being free from excess, from evil passion, from rashness, etc.
http://www.preceptaustin.org/1_peter_47-13.htm

….oops (said in a non-haughty manner)

The effects of marijuana vary.

Sometimes marijuana will make you laugh.
Sometimes it will make you anxious.
Sometimes it will make you depressed.
Sometime it will make you paranoid.
Sometimes if will make you question your ways, your own worth as a person and the way you are living your life.
Sometimes it allows you to focus your mind.
Sometimes it fill you with nothing but inhibition.
Sometimes, it provides anything but a recreational escape.

Anxious, depressed laughing, paranoid, focused to the point of being unaware of what is going on around you, etc.; Not at all the portrait of the sober (nepho) minded person Christians we are to be, therefore not endorsed by Jesus Christ. eos

False. The unforgivable sin is blashpheming the Holy Spirit. Not God or Jesus.
The three make up the Holy Trinity, to blasphemy one is to do so to all.

Matt. 12 22-37 conveys to us the story of the Pharisees bring a demon possessed man, both blind and mute, Jesus healed the man (empowered by the Holy Spirit) and they accused Jesus of driving the demons out by the power of Satan (beelzebub), this constituted attributing the works of God to Satan.
In Jesus' ensuing lecture, he warned that this attribution constituted blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (v 32), and declared it an unforgivable sin.

My point was and is that one should be very careful when they promote Jesus as an advocate of recreational drug use, especially in light of the fact that 99%+ of all Christian affiliations condemn this type of use for Christians.

("Whenever a man thinks he stands firm, let him take heed lest he fall" -Corinthians-).

whottt

12-30-2009, 02:12 AM

You presented an article written by a renegade Catholic Archbishop, I countered with the position of the Catholic Church (trumped). And you did put up a bit of resistance (“the position of the Catholic Church changes”), however weak it may have been. Thus your response (inept as it was) became part of your argument. Maybe you shouldn’t engage where you can’t make a valid point (your call).

That man is only a renegade if you look at his views on marijuana. Meanwhile, I can show Pope Sixtus IV, saying slavery was ok, appointing the Dominican Friars to engage in what was known as the Spanish Inquisition and engaging in lots of other un-Christianlike conduct. It's important because the Pope sets the opinion of the Catholic Church. He is not appointed Pop by God, he is appointed Pope by Men.

Those that would appoint a man such as Sixtus IV, and Sixtus IV himself, fit my definition of Renegade, not the views of this Archbishop.

The point was that your citing nutritional value of a substance hardly qualifies as Christ’s endorsement for consumption. A wild conclusion, one that in no way qualifies as Jesus’ endorsing recreational use of marijuana (lest you forget, that was the thrust of my original question).

I didn't attempt to use it as an edorsement by Jesus. I was attempting to prove it's not merely a drug with no value as you attempt to classify it.

You saying Elephant dung has nutritional value and that MJ tastes like shit hardly qualifies as Christ not endorsing it either.

It also doesn't refute the fact that is has value beyond medicinal.

Made, as in past tense, no one is making “flour” from marijuana seeds, so yes, it’s impractical.

Ahh spelling smack. Tell me, what was the point of that?

And it's not impractical at all, and that's not why they don't use it for flour from MJ seeds. They don't use it because it's illegal.

It is illegal there, and everywhere because men, not God, decreed it be so. That makes a plant created by God, a RENEGADE, and it also artificially drives up the price and forces people to turn to other alternatives, man-made alternatives, for their needs instead of what God provided, and clearly stated he was providing it, for us.

There is nothing healthy about having your memory retrieval inhibited, or in having your short term memory weakened (a couple of the effects the THC in mj has on the brain).

I don't really agree with that. It's a fact that humans themselves on no drugs or no form of intoxication can supress memories. Good memory retrieval is not guaranteed by any action.

And that removal of short term memories and retrieval difficulties could also be easily seen as a clearing of the mind.

Call it whatever you wish, ask the people living in public housing, and they'll tell you they just like getting high, no spiritual end as an objective.

I don't look down on the poor or consider myself to be better than them, just luckier, and I'm not even 100% sure of that. That point means nothing to me. For all I know they live a more spiritual and less materialistic life than you or do. The fact they smoke pot does not indicate the answer for me.

Everyone smoking pot now is told they are doing something wrong...by men, not God. God never said that, and neither did Jesus.

Among my Christian beliefs is that what happens to you in this life is not an indication of your fate in the afterlife. So you saying poor people in projects doesn't mean anything to me.

Negative, again (and I won’t post it a third time), here is the definition of sober as translated from the word “nepho” as it pertains to the New Testament;

In the NT nepho is used only figuratively meaning to be free from every form of mental and spiritual "intoxication". The idea then is to be calm and collected in spirit, circumspect, self-controlled, well-balanced, clear headed. Be self-possessed (for believers a more accurate description would be "Spirit" possessed) under all circumstances. It speaks of exercising self-restraint (enabled by the Spirit) and being free from excess, from evil passion, from rashness, etc.
http://www.preceptaustin.org/1_peter_47-13.htm

….oops (said in a non-haughty manner)

But you see...that's not God saying that is the definition. That is someone interpreting it. That is a man, not god, saying that is the applicable definition. Even though doing so contradicts pretty much every primary defintion of the word.

A man, not God, is saying that definition applies, even though, that is never ever the primary defintion of the word, it's not the primary definiton of sober.

Who is saying that is the correct definition? And what makes him more qualified than the Catholic Archbishop with the PHD?

And when I quote Genesis, there's no intepretation by anyone needed. In fact the only reason to interpret that, is to go against a clearly made statement by God.

God doesn't say he made some of the plants and trees...he says he made them all, he says he made them for us. Period. No ifs ands or butts. Therefore, to my understanding, they are all made by God and meant to be used by us.

And the one he didn't want us to use...was a tree and he was pretty clear which one he was referring to. And it is no longer available to us.

And making any of them now illegal, any of them, goes blatantly, directly and obviously against the will and words of God.

Period.

Anxious, depressed laughing, paranoid, focused to the point of being unaware of what is going on around you, etc.; Not at all the portrait of the sober (nepho) minded person Christians we are to be, therefore not endorsed by Jesus Christ. eos

Yes it is.

Because the two definitions listed for Sober are:

1. Being free from being drunk.
2. Being serious minded and solemn. And Marijuana most definitely can produce that perspective.

Nowhere in the definition of sober, does it say free from the effects of marijuana.

You have to contrive and go to secondary definition of previous versions in languages Jesus never in spoke, interpreted by men, to arrive at the conclusion you arrived at. You have to take about 3-4 steps away from the words of God and Jesus to get the conclusion you got.

The three make up the Holy Trinity, to blasphemy one is to do so to all.

Matt. 12 22-37 conveys to us the story of the Pharisees bring a demon possessed man, both blind and mute, Jesus healed the man (empowered by the Holy Spirit) and they accused Jesus of driving the demons out by the power of Satan (beelzebub), this constituted attributing the works of God to Satan.
In Jesus' ensuing lecture, he warned that this attribution constituted blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (v 32), and declared it an unforgivable sin.

And one good quote deserves another:

Matthew 12:30-32: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy. But the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

It's very specific wording used by Jesus there.

Ironically enough, everything I read says blaspheming the holy spirit means calling the work of God the work of the Devil.

God made marjuana....

My point was and is that one should be very careful when they promote Jesus as an advocate of recreational drug use, especially in light of the fact that 99%+ of all Christian affiliations condemn this type of use for Christians.

I don't care what 99% of Christians do. I am not a Christian..at least according to their definition of it. Jesus was not a Christian. Jesus did not coin the phrase or call men who followed him by that name. Was men that came up with that name, and were those men that called the apostles that even Christians themselves?

They are merely men. They are not God, they are not Jesus. And when they directly contradict the word of God as I understand it, and it's pretty plain and simple without need of interpretation to me...the interpretation is needed to go against God IMO, then I will see how what they say compares to what God said...and I go with what I think God said being as honest with myself as I can possibly be.

("Whenever a man thinks he stands firm, let him take heed lest he fall" -Corinthians-).

Exactly. We live in a society where alcohol is freely available as are most man-made drugs, both of which are warned of in the bible, in very specific terms, while a plant that God himself made and referenced is illegal. When he clearly describes it in Genesis as being from him, for us. As it was for millenia prior to 100 years ago or so.

I do not need any help interpreting here, I feel God and the Bible are particularly straight forward and easy to understansd on this. It only gets confusing and contradictory when those who are standing with man against God are forced to re-interpret his words to justify their views.

jochhejaam

12-30-2009, 03:11 PM

That man is only a renegade if you look at his views on marijuana.
Well, well, well, there exists a consensus between us that this individual supports lawlessness (we‘ll write it off as the law of averages catching up with us).

I didn't attempt to use it as an edorsement by Jesus. I was attempting to prove it's not merely a drug with no value as you attempt to classify it.
Okay, you’ll be able to provide the quote where I insinuated that mj had no nutritional value then (you won’t of course, because I never said that).

You saying Elephant dung has nutritional value and that MJ tastes like shit hardly qualifies as Christ not endorsing it either.
Nor was it meant to, it was meant to show the absurdity of you trying to be the Euell Gibbons for MJ.

It also doesn't refute the fact that is has value beyond medicinal.
Nor was it meant too (I supported it for that reason in a previous post. RIF)

Ahh spelling smack. Tell me, what was the point of that?
Not smack, just cleaning up your point (where’s your sense of humor man!?)

And it's not impractical at all, and that's not why they don't use it for flour from MJ seeds. They don't use it because it's illegal.
It is illegal there, and everywhere because men, not God, decreed it be so. That makes a plant created by God, a RENEGADE, and it also artificially drives up the price and forces people to turn to other alternatives, man-made alternatives, for their needs instead of what God provided, and clearly stated he was providing it, for us.
THC is a hallucinogen, that’s why men everywhere have deemed it to be illegal.

I don't really agree with that. It's a fact that humans themselves on no drugs or no form of intoxication can supress memories. Good memory retrieval is not guaranteed by any action.
And that removal of short term memories and retrieval difficulties could also be easily seen as a clearing of the mind.
Whottt’s opinions vs. Settled Science, hmmm, which way do I go…

But you see...that's not God saying that is the definition. That is someone interpreting it. That is a man, not god, saying that is the applicable definition. Even though doing so contradicts pretty much every primary defintion of the word.

A man, not God, is saying that definition applies, even though, that is never ever the primary defintion of the word, it's not the primary definiton of sober.

Who is saying that is the correct definition? And what makes him more qualified than the Catholic Archbishop with the PHD?
Is there some substantial and legitimate disagreement on the scholarly translation in the new testament? I don’t know of any. On the other hand, by your own admission the Archbishop is a renegade regarding MJ usage.

Because the two definitions listed for Sober are:

2. Being serious minded and solemn. And Marijuana most definitely can produce that perspective.
“Can” is the operative, like in; maybe, probably not very often, more often than not, not at all (recreational use does not imply a search for seriousness, or solemnness). It’s senseless to believe that Christians are encouraged to be sober minded, while simultaneously encouraged to ingest something that, for the most part, works against that being sober minded.

Nowhere in the definition of sober, does it say free from the effects of marijuana.

You have to contrive and go to secondary definition of previous versions in languages Jesus never in spoke, interpreted by men, to arrive at the conclusion you arrived at. You have to take about 3-4 steps away from the words of God and Jesus to get the conclusion you got.
You have provided absolutely nothing in the way of an alternative interpretation, only questions without answers. I’ll stick to the scholarly interpretation, thanks.

God made marjuana....
Yes, and he made the brown recluse spider, jelly fish, poison ivy and poison oak, etc., the point being that he made an innumerable (if you’d like to quantify it, go for it) amount of things that we should stay away from, didn’t he. (restating: staying away from MJ, for recreational purposes, is sound advice for Christians, you renegades go ahead and have at it)

I don't care what 99% of Christians do. I am not a Christian..at least according to their definition of it. Jesus was not a Christian. Jesus did not coin the phrase or call men who followed him by that name. Was men that came up with that name, and were those men that called the apostles that even Christians themselves?
No argument here, Christian means Christ-like, not sure what your point is in delving into the semantics of this.

balli

12-30-2009, 03:46 PM

Well, well, well, there exists a consensus between us that this individual supports lawlessness (we‘ll write it off as the law of averages catching up with us).

Okay, you’ll be able to provide the quote where I insinuated that mj had no nutritional value then (you won’t of course, because I never said that).

Nor was it meant to, it was meant to show the absurdity of you trying to be the Euell Gibbons for MJ.

Nor was it meant too (I supported it for that reason in a previous post. RIF)

Not smack, just cleaning up your point (where’s your sense of humor man!?)

THC is a hallucinogen, that’s why men everywhere have deemed it to be illegal.

Whottt’s opinions vs. Settled Science, hmmm, which way do I go…

Is there some substantial and legitimate disagreement on the scholarly translation in the new testament? I don’t know of any. On the other hand, by your own admission the Archbishop is a renegade regarding MJ usage.

“Can” is the operative, like in; maybe, probably not very often, more often than not, not at all (recreational use does not imply a search for seriousness, or solemnness). It’s senseless to believe that Christians are encouraged to be sober minded, while simultaneously encouraged to ingest something that, for the most part, works against that being sober minded.

You have provided absolutely nothing in the way of an alternative interpretation, only questions without answers. I’ll stick to the scholarly interpretation, thanks.

Yes, and he made the brown recluse spider, jelly fish, poison ivy and poison oak, etc., the point being that he made an innumerable (if you’d like to quantify it, go for it) amount of things that we should stay away from, didn’t he. (restating: staying away from MJ, for recreational purposes, is sound advice for Christians, you renegades go ahead and have at it)

No argument here, Christian means Christ-like, not sure what your point is in delving into the semantics of this.
You are a piece of shit and you have no idea what you're talking about. How dare some ass ignorant moron like yourself stand in judgment of marijuana. May God not have mercy on your fucked up soul.

DarrinS

12-30-2009, 03:59 PM

z0sa

12-30-2009, 04:01 PM

Pot has certainly done wonders for you.

i don't understand how balli gets so fired up, it's craziness.

jochhejaam

12-31-2009, 11:03 AM

You are a piece of shit and you have no idea what you're talking about. How dare some ass ignorant moron like yourself stand in judgment of marijuana. May God not have mercy on your fucked up soul.

A surprise and expert witness has been called to the stand and has delivered a dagger to the heart of the defense! The prosecution rests it's case (whottt, you have the right to cross-examine the witness).

(Happy New Year to all!)

balli

12-31-2009, 12:37 PM

This guy's just such a fucking idiot I don't even know where to start- Just scanning over this thread, it's obvious this jackass doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about. They don't make flour from weed? What's that jar of hemp protein doing on my shelf then, asshole? I mean, you do know that weed is a superfood correct, asshole? More potent in Omega 3 and amino acids than just about any other plant or animal based food source?

And yeah, I'm not going to go back through this thread to change the mind of one idiotic fuck, but I'll just say this: brown recluse spiders are bad ass. They're majestic and divine. Maybe not to smoke, but that isn't their purpose. Don't knock God's creation because you're too dumb to appreciate it.

In conclusion, this jochhejaam fuck is so voluminously retarded that it isn't worth the effort to counter all of his ridiculous assertions. It's just best to call him a fucking moron, one more time, before I move on.

BacktoBasics

12-31-2009, 12:43 PM

Lots of high quality rants in this thread.

Ginobilly

12-31-2009, 04:30 PM

yes it should! Everybody just chill and smoke a J:hat

I smoke to celebrate life and existence in general.

z0sa

12-31-2009, 05:14 PM

I'm smoking a fat J right now. I've already taken the days first shots and they were good.

balli

12-31-2009, 05:15 PM

I'm smoking a fat J right now. I've already taken the days first shots and they were good.
:smokin Happy New Years, z0sa

z0sa

12-31-2009, 05:40 PM

:smokin Happy New Years, z0sa

Cheers :toast

MiamiHeat

01-01-2010, 01:26 AM

Marijuana is the most profitable illegal substance

If you legalize it, and put it in Wal-Marts, or Walgreens, just like regular nicotine cigarettes, the entire crime underworld will take a MASSIVE hit.

It will weaken them so badly, they will be crippled. The average person really does not even touch the hard drugs like cocaine, but they do marijuana....

take it away from the criminals, tax it to generate income....

Tons of positives. Do it

boutons_deux

01-01-2010, 11:22 AM

http://www.alternet.org/images/site/logo.gif

The Year In Pot: Top 10 Events That Will Change the Way We Think About Marijuana

By Paul Armentano, NORML
Posted on January 1, 2010, Printed on January 1, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/144896/

#1 Obama Administration: Don’t Focus On Medical Marijuana Prosecutions
United States Deputy Attorney General David Ogden issued a memorandum (http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192) to federal prosecutors in October directing them to not “focus federal resources … on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.” The directive upheld a campaign promise by President Barack Obama, who had previously pledged (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvUziSfMwAw) that he was “not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.” Read the full story here (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7998).

#2 Public Support For Legalizing Pot Hits All-Time High
A majority of U.S. voters now support legalizing marijuana, according to a national poll (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34651/most_americans_support_legalizing_marijuana) of 1,004 likely voters published in December by Angus Reid. The Angus Reid Public Opinion poll results echo those of separate national polls conducted this year by Gallup (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7996), Zogby (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7806), ABC News (http://blog.norml.org/2009/04/30/abc-news-publics-support-for-pot-legalization-has-never-been-higher/), CBS News (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html), Rasmussen Reports (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html), and the California Field Poll (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/30/BA1417BHMA.DTL&hw=marijuana&sn=005&sc=443), each of which reported greater public support for marijuana legalization than ever before. Read the full story here (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=8054).

#3 Lifetime Marijuana Use Associated With Reduced Cancer Risk
The moderate long-term use of cannabis is associated with a reduced risk of head and neck cancer, according to the results of a population-based control study published in August by the journal Cancer Prevention Research. Authors reported (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19638490), “After adjusting for potential confounders (including smoking and alcohol drinking), 10 to 20 years of marijuana use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.” Read the full story here (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7944).

#4 AMA Calls For Review Of Marijuana’s Prohibitive Status
In November, the American Medical Association resolved that marijuana should longer be classified as a Schedule I prohibited substance. Drugs classified in Schedule I are defined (http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/abuse/1-csa.htm#Schedule%20I) as possessing “no currently accepted use in treatment in the United States.” In a separate action, the AMA also determined (http://americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/AMA_Report.pdf), “Results of short term controlled trials indicate that smoked cannabis reduces neuropathic pain, improves appetite and caloric intake especially in patients with reduced muscle mass, and may relieve spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis.” Read the full story here (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=8020).

#5 California: Lawmakers Hold Historic Hearing On Marijuana Legalization
State lawmakers heard testimony (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7999) in October in support of taxing and regulating the commercial production and distribution of cannabis for adults age 21 and older. Additional hearings, as well as a vote on Assembly Bill 390: the Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act (http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=12758896#at), are scheduled for January 12, 2010. Read the full story here (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=8002).

#6 Maine Voters Approve Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Measure; Dispensaries Coming To Rhode Island, Washington, DC In 2010
Voters in November decided in favor of a statewide measure (http://www.mainepatientsrights.org/Petition%20MEDICAL%20MARIJUANA.pdf) that allows for the state to license non-profit facilities to distribute medical cannabis to qualified patients. The vote marked the first time that citizens ever approved a statewide ballot proposal authorizing the creation of dispensaries. In June, Rhode Island lawmakers enacted (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7901) a similar measure. In December, Congress lifted (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7901) federal restrictions to allow for the DC City Council to implement provisions of a ten-year-old medical marijuana law that would allow for the use and distribution of medicinal cannabis in the District of Columbia. Read the full story here (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=8011).

#7 Oakland: Voters Approve First-In-The-Nation Medical Marijuana Business Tax
In July 80 percent of municipal voters approved Ballot Measure F (http://www.smartvoter.org/2009/07/21/ca/alm/meas/F/), the nation’s first ever business tax on the retail sales of cannabis. The tax, which takes effect on January 1, imposes an exclusive tax for “cannabis businesses” of $18 for every $1,000 of gross receipts. Read the full story here (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7937).

#8 Rasmussen Poll: Majority Of Americans Say Marijuana Is Safer Than Alcohol
More than half of American adults believe that alcohol is “more dangerous” than marijuana, according to the results of a national telephone poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/august_2009/51_rate_alcohol_more_dangerous_than_marijuana) of 1,000 likely voters published in September by Rasmussen Reports. Fifty-one percent of respondents, including a majority of women, rated the use of marijuana to be less dangerous than alcohol. Only 19 percent of those polled said that cannabis is the more dangerous of the two substances. Read the full story here (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7965).

#9 Many Teens See Medical Cannabis As Alternative Treatment Option
Some one-third of adolescents view their use of marijuana as therapeutic rather than recreational, according to survey data published (http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/4/1/7) in May by the journal Substance Abuse, Treatment, Prevention and Policy. Teens most commonly reported using cannabis therapeutically to counter symptoms of depression, stress and anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), physical pain, and sleeplessness. In November several mainstream media outlets (http://blog.norml.org/2009/11/23/parents-treating-children-with-medical-marijuana-cited-in-mainstream-media/), including The New York Times and Good Morning America, featured stories on adolescents using marijuana as a medicine. Read the full story here (http://blog.norml.org/2009/11/23/parents-treating-children-with-medical-marijuana-cited-in-mainstream-media/).

#10 Oregon NORML Opens ‘Cannabis Café,’ Media Frenzy Follows
In November Oregon NORM (http://www.ornorml.org/)L opened (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=8024) the state’s first café catering to state-authorized medical marijuana patients. Unlike conventional marijuana dispensaries that operate in states like California and Colorado, medical cannabis is not sold on the premises, nor is the primary function of the café to dispense marijuana. “This is not a medical marijuana dispensary with a café; this is a café for medical marijuana patients,” said Madeline Martinez (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7522), Oregon NORML Executive Director. The Associated Press, Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AD06O20091114), USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-23-cannibis-oregon_N.htm), The New York Times (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/americas-first-cannabis-cafe-open/), and Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/24/portlands_cannabis_cafe_is_the_first) were among the hundreds of media outlets that covered the story. Read the full story here (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=8024).

Paul Armentano is the deputy director of NORML (http://www.norml.org/) (the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), and is the co-author of the book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink (http://www.marijuanaissafer.com/) (2009, Chelsea Green).
© 2010 NORML All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/144896/

==========

Ain't gonna happen, because BigPharma and "Christian" hate-mongering, closed-minded militants will buy enough politicians who typically "lead" the country by being decades behind social change.

It's with great pleasure I read that gay-hater Orange County Rick Warren is $1M short and grovelling for donations. Seems like people afford to donate only when it doesn't hurt.

benefactor

01-01-2010, 03:54 PM

)
THC is a hallucinogen, that’s why men everywhere have deemed it to be illegal.

This has got to be a myth. I have smoke countless pounds of weed and I have never once came close to a hallucination...nor have any of the people I spent years smoking with. We are not talking about smoking wet here.

benefactor

01-01-2010, 03:56 PM

Jesus Christ endorses smoking pot?
He drank plenty of wine....to the point that people might accuse him of being a "drunkard". Weed is actually safer than alcohol.

boutons_deux

01-01-2010, 04:24 PM

"He drank plenty of wine" wine, beer, liquors have for centuries been alternatives to pathogenic water.

One the biggest corporate crimes, eg Nestle, has been encouraging poor women to use bad water with synthetic nursing powder to make formula, instead of breast nursing.

jochhejaam

01-02-2010, 09:23 PM

This has got to be a myth. I have smoke countless pounds of weed and I have never once came close to a hallucination...nor have any of the people I spent years smoking with. We are not talking about smoking wet here.

It's not a myth, you just don't have a full understanding of the definition of hallucinogen.

hallucinogen - A psychoactive drug that induces hallucinations or altered sensory experiences

benefactor

01-02-2010, 09:43 PM

balli

01-02-2010, 09:57 PM

In addition to alcohol, by that definition so's caffeine. And sugar. And ginseng. And Red Bull Energy Drink. And turkey, after all, that tryptophan shit is always fucking up my sensory experiences. Same with running. Those damn runners what with their hallucinogenic runner's highs and all. They should all be locked up.

God, that jochhejaam guy is just a clueless, ignorant, moronic fuck. I bet when he was in high school some stoner took his lunch money every day.

Wild Cobra

01-02-2010, 10:05 PM

I haven't followed this thread after my initial insertion that it should be legal.

How many people have disagreed?

balli

01-02-2010, 10:05 PM

I haven't followed this thread after my initial insertion that it should be legal.

How many people have disagreed?

1

FWIW Cobra, I know we've had our share of disagreements and find lots of personal failings in one another, but far more than some of the other board DE's, I think of you as a worthy adversary and it's mainly because we can agree on marijuana. The common ground is a good thing, because no matter how fucking crazy and or evil we think the other is, hey, at least we can agree on the one thing that should be agreed upon by EVERYONE. Which gives me hope.

Wild Cobra

01-02-2010, 10:08 PM

Really? One?

Who was that? We need to straiten him/her out.

Funny thing, I just looked for my post on the issue. Didn't find it here. Was there another similar thread recently?

Anyway, I say that the natural gifts from God should be enjoyed in moderation.

Wild Cobra

01-02-2010, 10:10 PM

It's not a myth, you just don't have a full understanding of the definition of hallucinogen.

hallucinogen - A psychoactive drug that induces hallucinations or altered sensory experiences

By the strict sense of the definition, alcohol and cigarettes are hallucinogens.

Weed doesn't have that much of a sensory alteration. Yes, a very mild hallucinogen, but far from dangerous.

balli

01-02-2010, 10:11 PM

Who was that? We need to straiten him/her out.
Whottt tried his damnedest. And I just got too pissed, per usual. But if you think it's a battle worth fighting, knock yourself out.

jochhejaam

01-02-2010, 10:23 PM

By the strict sense of the definition, alcohol and cigarettes are hallucinogens.

By the strict definition, alcohol is not a hallucinogen, it's a depressant.

And fwiw, I smoked mj for about 5 years (many years removed from it).

baseline bum

01-02-2010, 10:50 PM

By the strict definition, alcohol is not a hallucinogen, it's a depressant.

And fwiw, I smoked mj for about 5 years (many years removed from it).

By your definition, it absolutely is, since it clearly does alter sensory experiences. That's an incredibly weak argument that you're making saying something doesn't fit one category only because it does another.

Wild Cobra

01-02-2010, 10:59 PM

By your definition, it absolutely is, since it clearly does alter sensory experiences. That's an incredibly weak argument that you're making saying something doesn't fit one category only because it does another.
That's what I was thinking.

Thanks. I think you explained it better.

benefactor

01-02-2010, 11:14 PM

Blake

01-03-2010, 05:56 AM

You do not have the right to slap me because it not your business. You bigoted, nazi.

Nazi, bigot, piece of shit.

You do not have more rights than me, or a business owner, because you are non-smoker. You fucking bigot.

It is not the same thing. You see, the owner welcomes smokers, that is his perogative, it is not yours to go into his business and tell him, or me, what we can or cannot do.

It's your perogative to fuck off and go find a place where smoking is not allowed and then be offended when people smoke.

Blake, you going into a smoking establishment and being offended is like me going to a retard convention and being suprised to see you there.

I'm not sure what part of "second hand smoke is harmful" you aren't getting.

If the owner has no problem with me slapping you in the face then get the fuck out and go to a non-slapping bar, you fucking hypocrite.

I'm not surprised you go to retard conventions.

Blake

01-03-2010, 06:09 AM

The proof is in the amount of pool halls that have gone under. 5 and counting. Each of them went from a solid business to a mess in less than a year. The big one "Paradise Billiards" is struggling pretty bad right now. Clicks as well. Both of those owners have publicly attacked the smoking ban. Each business has specifically sited the ban as a major contributing factor in loss of revenue. 4 of those pool halls have open their books up to the public so they can see for themselves. Are they just making this up? Did they photoshop the numbers? Its pretty obvious.

If its not the smoking ban and these business thrived in a shitty economy a year ago why are they now going under? Is this all a coincidence? 11 places of business, and I know its more, have gone under this year. Each of them have been in business in excess of 8 years here and some much longer. Each one of them were targets of the recent smoking ban in bars, pool halls, bingo parlors and bowling alley's. Each of them went under less than a year after the ban. Its not just a coincidence. The numbers state that as a city even in its entirety is down over 15% in alcohol sales.

I'm pro the smoking ban but not in any establishment that is 21 and up. Adults only. Everyone was on board with the ban until they added the bars and pool halls. Unnecessary bullshit.

I really don't know what further proof you require. How many businesses need to go under with their owners pointing to the revenue post ban? My guess is that it doesn't matter to you because 90 businesses could go under and each of them could blame the smoking ban and each of them could provide proof of down revenue and you wouldn't buy any of it. Because you're a fucking moron.

I'm not sure why you want to get owned over here too...but ok.

CORPUS CHRISTI — Corpus Christi’s bars aren’t selling as much booze as last year, but it’s unclear whether a recent smoking ban, the recession or other factors are the primary cause.

Alcohol sales at Corpus Christi’s bars and restaurants were, on average, down by about $3,000 per establishment this August compared with last August. The drop equates to about an 8 percent drop in alcohol sales overall.

When only considering alcohol sales at bars and pool halls, the average drop in sales is about $4,800 per bar for August.

Those numbers come from the alcohol tax receipts reported to the state comptroller’s office. Statewide, tax receipts indicated a 1 percent dip in alcohol sales when comparing this August with last.

Although some bar owners say the smoking ban is to blame, spending in the city is down overall.

Sales on taxable goods, which include most items except groceries, were down 13.4 percent from the same period last year, said Constance Sanchez, the city’s interim finance director.

Statewide, sales tax revenue dropped about 12 percent so far this year compared with the same period the previous year, said R.J. DeSilva, a spokesman for the state comptroller’s office.

Alcohol tax revenue has stayed relatively flat, he said.

DeSilva said the comparison of August 2008 receipts to August 2009 receipts could accurately show a decline in sales, although comparing a full year could show more accurate long-term trends.

The city hasn’t gone a full year without smoking in bars.

The City Council in December extended the ban on smoking in public places to include bars, pool halls and bingo parlors, and it took effect in June. It expanded a ban approved in January 2005, which extended a long-standing ban on smoking in workplaces to include restaurants.

Businesses that accommodate smokers with an ashtray or customers who light up indoors could face a $2,000 fine under the ordinance. City officials said no citations have been issued since the ban took effect.

The declines have hurt some businesses to the point that employees say they may have to close.

Theo’s Billiard Saloon, 5815 Weber Road, saw a 37 percent drop in its August alcohol sales compared with the previous year, according to the tax receipts.

Pool hall staff member Josh Kurz said the dramatic drop came after the smoking ban went into effect. The pool hall has no way to build an outdoor smoking area because it’s in a strip center. If sales don’t improve, the pool hall will close in February when its lease is up, he said.

“I hear customers complaining,” he said. “I’d imagine (the sales drops) are because of the smoking ban.”

Pool halls like Theo’s saw the most dramatic declines in alcohol sales.

Alcohol sales dropped 49 percent at Hot Shots Pools and Billiards, 4951 Ayers St., 20 percent at Paradise Pool and Billiards, 5141 Oakhurst Drive, 14 percent at Click’s Billiards, 4535 S. Padre Island Drive, and 11 percent at Rascal’s, 5959 Williams Drive.

And although most bars across the city have seen their alcohol sales drop, some are bringing in more money than the previous year.

Molly McArdle’s, 4201 McArdle Road, saw its alcohol sales increase 71 percent and Outta Bounds Sports Lounge, 1402 Rodd Field Road, saw its sales go up 40 percent.

The mixed reaction makes it difficult to say what effect the smoking ban has on businesses.

Cities that have passed smoking bans have conducted studies that found prohibiting smoking in bars doesn’t impact alcohol sales. Owners of bars and pool halls have produced their own studies, claiming the bans hurt their business.

Across the state, recent alcohol sales trends are varied.

In Abilene, where a smoking ban has been in effect for more than three years, alcohol sales dropped by 13 percent from August 2008 to August 2009.

In San Antonio, which doesn’t ban smoking in bars, alcohol sales dropped 2 percent.

Other cities that ban smoking in bars saw alcohol sales go up in the past year: Plano’s sales increased by 12 percent, Austin’s increased by 2 percent and El Paso’s increased by 1 percent.

Corpus Christi alcohol sales:

August 2008: $6.4 million

August 2009: $5.9 million

Cities’ August 2009 alcohol sales

Austin: up 2%

El Paso: up 1%

McAllen: up 9%

Plano: up 12%

San Antonio: down 2%

Abilene: down 13%

Corpus Christi: down 8%

Statewide: down 1%

Source: state comptroller

August 2009 compared with August 2008

Source: state comptroller

The city’s ban prohibits smoking in bars, pool halls, bowling alleys and most bingo halls. It expanded a ban approved in January 2005, which extended a long-standing ban on smoking in workplaces to include restaurants.

http://www.caller.com/news/2009/oct/10/alcohol-sales-drop-after-smoking-ban/

I like you, even if you are an idiot.