Reply With Quote
killing is ok in your court?
Going to a foreign country and killing it's citizens over false WMD is a true crime,
how can weed be compared to that, if killing is ok, smoking is ok
let him keep his house
..This court is adjourned.
killing is ok in your court?
no that's why i sad it's a true crime
but killing people is ok , ok as in allowable by a soldier of the armed forces , but for him to smoke some weed to relieve himself is not , it's stupid.
you also said that if killing is ok then smoking is ok.
if killing is actually not ok, then......?
I think weed should be legalized, but not because a soldier that puts himself on the line should be able to relieve himself.but killing people is ok , ok as in allowable by a soldier of the armed forces , but for him to smoke some weed to relieve himself is not , it's stupid.
Did someone really compare selling drugs to opposing segregation? I really don't think this guy was taking a moral stand with his pounds of pot and a scale.
To get back to the original story: This is a private en y and they can set the criteria under which they give a house away and they clearly will not give it to a convicted felon. If he has such a strong moral stand against the drug laws of this country, he will gladly sacrifice material gain for his moral victory.
that's pretty much it right there
Let's see, as a proxy for general harm caused by various lifestyle factors, deaths from:
cigarettes - 435k/yr
inactivity and poor diet - 400k/yr
alcohol - 85k/yr
illicit drugs - 17k/yr
So why not outlaw fast food, cigarettes and alcohol, and make exercise compulsory for all Americans?
The War on Drugs is about protecting the status quo - entrenched alcohol and cigarette lobbies reinforce the policy. It has nothing to do with the actual harm caused by illegal drugs, nor does it make sense from a law enforcement or health perspective: if something like marijuana were legalised and regulated, police could concentrate on real crime (if you think a person smoking a bit of weed is a real crime you need to check your head and ask yourself how it is any different from having a few drinks), prisons wouldn't be overcrowded to breaking point, and the health budget would be swimming in money from tax revenue. You'd also take hundreds of billions of dollars from the hands of organised crime and transfer it to the Federal Govt budget.
Let's see, as a proxy for general harm caused by various lifestyle factors, deaths from:
cigarettes - 435k/yr
inactivity and poor diet - 400k/yr
alcohol - 85k/yr
illicit drugs - 17k/yr
So why not outlaw fast food, cigarettes and alcohol, and make exercise compulsory for all Americans?
The War on Drugs is about protecting the status quo - entrenched alcohol and cigarette lobbies reinforce the policy. It has nothing to do with the actual harm caused by illegal drugs, nor does it make sense from a law enforcement or health perspective: if something like marijuana were legalised and regulated, police could concentrate on real crime (if you think a person smoking a bit of weed is a real crime you need to check your head and ask yourself how it is any different from having a few drinks), prisons wouldn't be overcrowded to breaking point, and the health budget would be swimming in money from tax revenue. You'd also take hundreds of billions of dollars from the hands of organised crime and transfer it to the Federal Govt budget.
"You'd also take hundreds of billions of dollars from the hands of organised crime and transfer it to the Federal Govt budget."
So move it from one criminal element to another? I better fire it up before that happens and the price goes through the roof!!
You should probably go back and read my posts and then look up the definition of "civil disobedience", because coupled with disobeying an unjust law is the willingness to serve the penalty for breaking it.
All that pot must have rendered you unable to focus. This has nothing to do with George Orwell. Keep your eye on the topic.So Big Brother's always right.
For the record, I wasn't comparing pot laws with segregation laws, except to point out that holding up a law simply because it's a law is circular logic.
You've learned well, young Republican, in the ways of ignoring logic and hiding behind stupid antiquated ideas. Still, tell me how you'd make prohibition work and quit being such a pussy, since you said shades of gray thought is the reason we need to have a full war on drugs in the first place.
Running a massive deficit, and a dangerous debt load (public debt is over $10trillion, compared to GDP of about $14trillion, which is far over 40%, the point at which economists say the debt becomes a concern), your government needs all the fiscal help it can get!
As for legalisation and regulation, that doesn't mean the government runs the business, it just sets the rules for the business. Any legalisation of drugs would necessarily require those drugs to be far cheaper than the black market, coupled with stated purity, in order to "capture the market". However, this is not a problem as drugs cost a tiny proportion to produce compared to what you pay for them.
Suggesting that those who break the law shouldn't whine when they are punished is a stupid antiquated idea? I'm not exactly sure how you infer that I'm a republican because of that, but you are, as usual, wrong. Not surprising from someone who's threatened by the idea of an old lady telling children that they shouldn't take drugs or who rails against the drug companies while suggesting that they should take over the narcotics trade.
I care little to nothing about this debate. I only check the thread because it's funny seeing you guys pee your panties and read nefarious ulterior motives into my having stated one simple fact.
Wow, I haven't heard anyone refer to weed as "dope" in years. These days "dope" is dually applied to heroin and meth but you never hear it in reference to weed anymore. "Reefer" and "Ganja" are dying too.
How about doobage and groob?
True story. Two days ago I was driving down this quiet road with little traffic into town. I like driving in that way because I can smoke my pipe in my car and not run into any trouble. Well on that day I was hitting my pipe as I turned a corner, and wouldn't you know a cop turned the corner coming the other direction at the same time. I quickly tossed my pipe on the floor and stashed the bag in a cargo hold I typically use for smuggling es for Jabba the Hutt. Lucky for me, the cop kept going but as soon as he was out of sight I made sure to burn enough rubber to put distance between us to not get caught. That happened to me once before, but in a neighborhood and the cop actually did turn around and I was able to lose him with a few quick turns and gtfo of there.
Actually, one of my father's friends always busts my balls for smoking cigarettes whenever I see him. He's recently started saying "You been smoking the doobage too boy?" and it kind of pisses me off since this guy was a career stoner until he got married.
The antiquated notion is that you can enforce prohibition. Nice way to punk out. No nuts, no glory. I knew you were full of when you made your idiotic statement about the need for the all-out war on drugs that you cannot justify in any meaningful way. Might as well just keep your mouth shut in the thread if you can't elaborate on your idea.Suggesting that those who break the law shouldn't whine when they are punished is a stupid antiquated idea? I'm not exactly sure how you infer that I'm a republican because of that, but you are, as usual, wrong. Not surprising from someone who's threatened by the idea of an old lady telling children that they shouldn't take drugs or who rails against the drug companies while suggesting that they should take over the narcotics trade.
I care little to nothing about this debate. I only check the thread because it's funny seeing you guys pee your panties and read nefarious ulterior motives into my having stated one simple fact.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
