Yup, that legalization of pot is a good thing

[Taft2016]

You are an idiot. Prohibition, harrasing, jailing, seizing the property of and killing citizens does not promote limited government.

I've already demonstrated how it does. Calling me an "idiot" and simply repeating your original disproven point does not alter the facts at all.

If anything, in a society like ours, prohibition protects more liberties than it denies. It leaves fewer people depending upon the redistribution of wealth from working folks like me, to hopelessly addicted hopheads like yourself.

To which you would say, "Bullshit! I can handle *MY* high!" Well bully for you. That must have taken a lot of practice. However, there are many who can not and who end up a burden on the taxpayer.

As I've said, eliminate the social welfare state and basically 95% of my objections to lifting prohibitions will be taken care of.

Because then *MY* liberties will not be negatively impacted. My liberty to keep what I earn through my personal efforts will not have to go to subsidize the invented "liberty" of another. When the President and Congress can say, "We are lifting prohibitions, however, the government will not provide food, housing, or medical care for those who chose to ingest these substances, or for their families or children."

You claim the governments that compel us to support social welfare when it offers you some credibility but then denounce them in the same breath you two faced moron.

I don't denounce social welfare blanketly, and even if I did, how does that make me "two faced"?

Apparently, you think the worst thing the government has ever done is help a poor person.

No, I don't think that the worst thing a government can do. I suppose genocide is the worst thing a government can do, however, this discussion is not about the "worst thing a government can do." But anyway, thanks for letting us know you're one of those "social welfare state" libertarians.

However, directly related to the topic at hand, I do think that a government deliberately fomenting misery and dependance upon the government, for the purposes of compiling a reliable political constituency, is despicable.

 

[Taft2016]

Idiot, you mentioned presidents. I never did. I have no idea WTF you are talking about (but then neither do you).

Acknowledging ignorance does win debate points. Here, take my hand sonny and I'll walk you through it.

You claimed prohibition laws are "fascist." Which is a bizarro notion to start with, since America's most famous prohibition law went through entire Constitutional Amendment process. But back to the point at hand;

If every prohibition law is fascist, then the President who signed the prohibition law into effect, and the Congress that passed it, and even the Supreme Court that upheld it, are also fascist. Likewise, even subsequent President, Congress, and Supreme Court that failed to repeal/overturn it, or advocate for its repeal/overturn, is likewise fascist.

Likewise, every government on the planet that has prohibition laws, which is basically every government, is also fascist.

Frankly, it speaks volumes to your state of mind that you see your individual liberties infringed upon because the entire world is fascist, interfering with your ability to get high.

You are a fascist, traitor, etc.

Obviously. The entire world is fascist.

and the rebels are going to be the ones that slit your belly from throat to scrote. I will be laughing as you and your fellows bleed out. The French didn't stop using the Guillotine until the mid 1970s. Watch the video to learn your fate.

Yeah, an army of hopheads are going to take over the world

I can imagine the conversations in the foxholes: "Yo duuuuuuuuude! Did you see that bomb go off? The colors, man, the colors....!

 

[Damocles]

I never considered beer to be a "spirit." Is it? I dunno, and frankly am not that interested to debate the issue. I always considered "spirits" to be something distilled. If beer is considered a "spirit", I would be wrong, but not wrong in the sense of what I thought were spirits. I've never come across a still and corn mash aging in oaken barrels in a Manhattan apartment.

Tobacco is VERY difficult to grow, and the seeds are costly. I don't imagine a smoker with a pack-a-day habit could ever grow enough tobacco in his Manhattan apartment to keep up with his habit. However, I've come across LOTS of people growing marijuana in their Manhattan apartments.

I see. So the only alcohol is distilled. People make their own all the time. They also distill their own.

http://homedistiller.org

And no, tobacco is not that difficult.

http://www.tobaccoseed.ca/

Most of the expense with tobacco is in the taxes, however there are places that teach you how to do what you need to get it done.

By far it is more difficult to grow decent weed than it is to make your own alcoholic beverage and/or grow your own tobacco. Your anecdotal "I see people doing one but not the other in NYC" notwithstanding. (Likely you only see the one because the other isn't illegal.)

While many people buy the legal product in the store, as the taxes get to be more punitive people will begin to grow their own tobacco as well.

The reality is it is more indicative of American laziness than difficulty that most people buy their tobacco.

 

[Teflon Don]

Wtf ru talking about? Why would they be more able to determine how alcohol affected ones driving than marijuana?

Fuck conservatism! Fuck Reagan!

You are allowed to grow your own in Colorado.

You don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Do field sobriety test used for alcohol translate over to being high on marijuana? Is there a BMC or Blood Marijuana Concentration that says you are too high to drive?

 

[Taft2016]

I see. So the only alcohol is distilled.

I didn't say that, I said that's what I thought what was meant by "spirits." Not generically "alcohol." I also said I could be wrong. But what's the fuckin' point of talking to you? You insist upon nittling upon this little tangent.

OK! Every urban apartment dweller in the entire country has enough time and space to cultivate, dry, and cure enough tobacco for a pack-a-day habit. They have enough space to brew barrels of beer. They also have enough space for a copple kettle still to distill corn mash. Shit, they even have enough indoor space to grow the fuckin' corn.

Tobacco is the easiest crop to grow, even though its ideal growing zone is limited to a small region straddling Virginia and North Carolina. Meanwhile, marijuana is the toughest to grow, which is why it earned its nickname "weed."

Oh, and BTW, originally I wasn't interested enough to Google the "spirits" issue, but now I did, and guess what? I'm right again, and you hopheads are wrong again:

http://www.syrupmagazine.com/what_it_is/what_alcohol.html

ypes of Alcoholic Beverages

The variety of alcohol types, different brands, and mixing ingredients is sometimes overwhelming. SYRUP Magazine makes it easy for you to gain a clear understanding of each type of alcohol and mixing ingredients by breaking them down to their basic classes: Spirits, Liqueurs, Wines & Champagnes, Beers, and Mixers.


SPIRITS

GIN - a colorless alcoholic beverage made by distilling or redistilling rye or other grain spirits and adding juniper berries or aromatics such as anise, caraway seeds, or angelica root as flavoring.

VODKA - originally distilled from fermented wheat mash but now also made from a mash of rye, corn, or potatoes.

RUM - distilled from cane juice, or from the scummings of the boiled juice, or from treacle or molasses, or from the lees of former distillations. Also, sometimes used colloquially as a generic or a collective name for intoxicating liquor.

WHISKEY - distilled from grain, potatoes, etc., especially in Scotland, Ireland, and the United States. In the United States, whisky is generally distilled from maize, rye, or wheat, but in Scotland and Ireland it is often made from malted barley.

TEQUILA - an alcoholic liquor distilled from the fermented juice of the Central American century plant Agave tequilana.

BRANDY - an alcoholic liquor distilled from wine or fermented fruit juice.

 

[Damocles]

Yeah. Gotta grow your own corn.

Nitpicking again to try to desperately make your point so that people will believe you. I notice you took out the links from my post, they were inconvenient and stuff as they showed you were wrong.

I know brewing beer can be done in an apartment, I've done it. I know people distill their own (legally BTW, there is a limit but you can legally do this), and I've shown you that you can get the seeds and grow your own tobacco easily.

The main difference, and why people are willing to get past the American laziness, is MJ is illegal in most states, you can't just pop off down to the local gas station and buy yourself a "pack"...

And if you believe you are going to be happy with bud picked off the side of the highway because it is called "weed" you've another belief coming. There is a reason the cops can find people growing their own through electricity use....

 

[Timshel]

I've already demonstrated how it does. Calling me an "idiot" and simply repeating your original disproven point does not alter the facts at all.

If anything, in a society like ours, prohibition protects more liberties than it denies. It leaves fewer people depending upon the redistribution of wealth from working folks like me, to hopelessly addicted hopheads like yourself.

To which you would say, "Bullshit! I can handle *MY* high!" Well bully for you. That must have taken a lot of practice. However, there are many who can not and who end up a burden on the taxpayer.

As I've said, eliminate the social welfare state and basically 95% of my objections to lifting prohibitions will be taken care of.

Because then *MY* liberties will not be negatively impacted. My liberty to keep what I earn through my personal efforts will not have to go to subsidize the invented "liberty" of another. When the President and Congress can say, "We are lifting prohibitions, however, the government will not provide food, housing, or medical care for those who chose to ingest these substances, or for their families or children."



I don't denounce social welfare blanketly, and even if I did, how does that make me "two faced"?



No, I don't think that the worst thing a government can do. I suppose genocide is the worst thing a government can do, however, this discussion is not about the "worst thing a government can do." But anyway, thanks for letting us know you're one of those "social welfare state" libertarians.

However, directly related to the topic at hand, I do think that a government deliberately fomenting misery and dependance upon the government, for the purposes of compiling a reliable political constituency, is despicable.

You have demonstrated nothing of the kind. You simply engaged in fear mongering speculation. And you have not disproven my point. The drug war leads to bigger government. We know this for a fact. There's no need for speculation.

I make six figures. I haven't smoked in over a year. Your ad hominem arguments are all based on fantasy. I am not untypical for a marijuana user.

Again, you're just looking for any pretext you can to maintain the drug war and support your big government programs.

 

[Taft2016]

Yeah. Gotta grow your own corn.

Yeah, maybe you should bring your sarcasm meter for recalibration.

Meanwhile, are they any other minor tangents you want to try and desperately redirect your flagging argument towards, and yet still get savagely pwned?

 

[Taft2016]

You have demonstrated nothing of the kind. You simply engaged in fear mongering speculation. And you have not disproven my point. The drug war leads to bigger government. We know this for a fact. There's no need for speculation.

The fact that the presence of cheap and readily available opium in China led to all types societal problems is not speculation. It is history.

The emperor of China did not even have a social welfare state in place like we do in place. Even without it, he saw his country going down the crapper and put a prohibition in place.

Is it speculation that lifting prohibitions would cause more people to sample these substances?

Is it speculation that a percentage of them will become addicts?

Is it speculation that society will ultimately bear the cost for caring for these addicts and their dependents?

I don't think so. I think its proven history, which is why every country on the planet has prohibitions in place.

And I think that somebody willfully ignoring this history is merely trying to expand the government's welfare state dependency.

 

[Space Monkey]

Acknowledging ignorance does win debate points. Here, take my hand sonny and I'll walk you through it.

You claimed prohibition laws are "fascist." Which is a bizarro notion to start with, since America's most famous prohibition law went through entire Constitutional Amendment process. But back to the point at hand;

If every prohibition law is fascist, then the President who signed the prohibition law into effect, and the Congress that passed it, and even the Supreme Court that upheld it, are also fascist. Likewise, even subsequent President, Congress, and Supreme Court that failed to repeal/overturn it, or advocate for its repeal/overturn, is likewise fascist.

Likewise, every government on the planet that has prohibition laws, which is basically every government, is also fascist.

Frankly, it speaks volumes to your state of mind that you see your individual liberties infringed upon because the entire world is fascist, interfering with your ability to get high.



Obviously. The entire world is fascist.



Yeah, an army of hopheads are going to take over the world

I can imagine the conversations in the foxholes: "Yo duuuuuuuuude! Did you see that bomb go off? The colors, man, the colors....!

No. I never said any laws were fascist, retard. I said you were a fascist.

Why don't you go ahead and quote where I said prohibition was fascist.

Then, after you cant find that, stop ascribing things to me that I neither said nor implied. The logic leaps you make are entirely your own, and they explain a lot about the ginormous misconceptions you live under.

Finally, idiot; it will not be the stoners rebelling, it will be the freedom fighters, patriots, threepers, oath keepers, fathers who can't feed their children (primary cause) and students who can't find work after 8 years of school and $200,000 or more invested.

You sir are a fool and an uninformed one at that.

 

[Taft2016]

No. I never said any laws were fascist, retard. I said you were a fascist.

Why don't you go ahead and quote where I said prohibition was fascist.

So I'm a fascist for defending prohibition laws, but prohibition laws are not fascist?

Do you guys have anything substantial to offer to continue this? I mean other than tortured logic, mischaracterizations, and
bonehead backpedaling?

 

[Timshel]

The fact that the presence of cheap and readily available opium in China led to all types societal problems is not speculation. It is history.

The emperor of China did not even have a social welfare state in place like we do in place. Even without it, he saw his country going down the crapper and put a prohibition in place.

Is it speculation that lifting prohibitions would cause more people to sample these substances?

Is it speculation that a percentage of them will become addicts?

Is it speculation that society will ultimately bear the cost for caring for these addicts and their dependents?

I don't think so. I think its proven history, which is why every country on the planet has prohibitions in place.

And I think that somebody willfully ignoring this history is merely trying to expand the government's welfare state dependency.

Your historical anecdote does not support your argument, which is full of holes and inconsistent spin. As you acknowledge, China had no comparative welfare system and therefore is of absolutely no value to your speculative claims. Further, the propaganda on opium in China was related to trade balances, discrimination against Chinese immigrants and little else. They still use it and they are not a population of poor, stupid or lazy people as your reefer madness portends. But opium and marijuana are not at all comparable. Marijuana is not addictive, certainly not as much as opium or even the tobacco with which it was often smoked.

Yes, it is speculation to suggest that legalization will lead to a significant increase in use. It's hyperbolic nonsense to suggest that it will lead to an epidemic of addiction with a significant impact on the costs of social welfare. We have very recent examples that show you are absolutely full of stuff. In fact, it is more likely that legalization will contribute net tax revenues that will offset the costs of such programs to other taxpayers. But you inconsistently claim that the prospect of taxing users is just as much a reason to continue prohibition as is social welfare spending that is in any way indirectly related to a user. Clearly, you are nothing but an assclown desperately searching for some way to continue the big government drug war.

 

[Taft2016]

Your historical anecdote does not support your argument, which is full of holes and inconsistent spin. As you acknowledge, China had no comparative welfare system and therefore is of absolutely no value to your speculative claims.

Naturally. China would have found itself in a much better position if it was doling out housing, food, and medical care to all of its opium addicts.

 

[Timshel]

Naturally. China would have found itself in a much better position if it was doling out housing, food, and medical care to all of its opium addicts.

Strawman. The point was that it offers no support for your claims about how this will create a significant impact on social programs.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

This is something only an experienced drunk driver could write.

WRONG.

While there can be no doubt that pot slightly impairs a driver, the effects cannot be compared to the effect of alcohol. from the article;

in particular, it shows an increase in driving under the influence of both alcohol and drugs

Strange article coming from WebMD.

??? What the hell are you smoking?

I am saying it is blatantly retarded to drive drunk or stoned. To suggest being stoned is 'much safer' is blatantly retarded. They are both very dangerous.

Saying pot 'slightly' impairs a driver is just like saying a drink 'slightly' impairs a driver. It is about quantity of both that matters. If you are stoned (not just a buzz) the danger is similar to being drunk (not just a slight buzz).

 

[Timshel]

??? What the hell are you smoking?

I am saying it is blatantly retarded to drive drunk or stoned. To suggest being stoned is 'much safer' is blatantly retarded. They are both very dangerous.

Saying pot 'slightly' impairs a driver is just like saying a drink 'slightly' impairs a driver. It is about quantity of both that matters. If you are stoned (not just a buzz) the danger is similar to being drunk (not just a slight buzz).

No, it is not. Driving high is much safer than driving drunk.

Maybe you should watch the video dh posted. Try driving at 16 times the legal limit for alcohol. That would be higher than has ever been recorded and would likely kill you without ever getting behind the wheel. But if you managed to start a vehicle and get it into drive you would probably wreck immediately.

You have to be a complete fing moron to argue that marijuana impairs someone to the same degree alcohol does. I have NEVER seen anyone so high they could not walk, but it is quite common with alcohol.

 

[zappasguitar]

??? What the hell are you smoking?

I am saying it is blatantly retarded to drive drunk or stoned. To suggest being stoned is 'much safer' is blatantly retarded. They are both very dangerous.

Saying pot 'slightly' impairs a driver is just like saying a drink 'slightly' impairs a driver. It is about quantity of both that matters. If you are stoned (not just a buzz) the danger is similar to being drunk (not just a slight buzz).

Well it's true...and one of your best buddies, Billy, has stated as much, pointing out that drinking ONE DRINK is NOTHING to him and he could drive without any problem.

The same is true with pot.