Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    9:57 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Legalize Marijuana? Back to Topics
ldheinz

Champion Author
Chicago

Posts:23,043
Points:2,902,345
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2010 5:17:33 AM

This topic is for a discussion on whether or not Marijuana should be legalized.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,043
Points:2,902,345
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 11:40:28 AM

NORML Welcomes O.penVAPE to The Business Network

Denver based O.penVAPE is one of the largest national cannabis brands in the United States.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,098
Points:419,405
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 10:31:30 AM

"Putting words in your mouth is often the only way to make any sense out of what you post."

I must disagree. That is going too far. Nobody can be held responsible for what somebody else says.

If a post is nonsense then noting such is all that can really be said about it.

And that can be said quite often in this particular topic with fueluser10 posting.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,887
Points:2,748,600
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 3:28:49 PM

fueluser10 - "rjhenn: So you're saying that you have been carrying on in a libelous fashion with me?"

No, I'm saying that your language is often so obscure that it's difficult to figure out what you're talking about.

"When you went to school did teachers put words in your mouth?"

Yes, in order to teach me how to express myself properly.

I take it none of your teachers ever did that.

"Shockjock: Do I come across like a rocket scientist to you?"

Far from it.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,496
Points:2,730,715
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 12:44:19 PM

"Do I come across like a rocket scientist to you?"

LOL!!

Not at all...
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,874
Points:695,475
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 11:57:24 AM

FU “Do I come across like a rocket scientist to you?”

I sincerely doubt that you want an honest answer to that question from everybody.

FU “Or do you just disapprove of some POVs that don't see things in a pro cannabis light?”

No, but I do disapprove of people who refuse to discuss the reasons why they have the POV that they do.

And those who apparently don’t have a clue why they have the POV that they do, other than to think that “the law is the law and therefore the law must be right and can’t be questioned even if it’s proved wrong”.

And who complain about using acronyms and then use acronyms themselves.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,874
Points:695,475
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 11:51:53 AM

Libel - Defamation — is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation.

You really shouldn't try to use words that you don't know the meaning of FU. It makes you look foolish.

Perhaps by the time you learn proper grammar you can graduate to two syllable words.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,874
Points:695,475
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 11:48:18 AM

FU “Oh my god. Really.. can you possibly find any more fault in something that isn't pro cannabis supportive in nature?”

For the 100th time, I really don’t give a darn if you’re pro cannabis or against it. I’m going to look at what you say for factual accuracy and logic regardless of which side you’re on.

So you can quit the whining and ‘poor me’ attitude. All that does is prove to me that you have no clue what you’re talking about, that you have no intention of learning anything, ever, and that you don’t give a fig for anything that anybody else says, you’re just going to stick with your own opinion no matter what the facts are.

FU “Are you going to tell me that YouTube has got some videos that you may find unsatisfactory?”

Did I say that? Anywhere?

If you think I did say that, then please quote it and give the time and date that I said it. Otherwise, you’re just making up something else to whine about.

FU “Maybe especially in regards to cannabis use that may not be pro cannabis supportive in nature?”

Again, I’ve told you that just saying that you’ve seen something somewhere that says something has no value. Unless you can post a link to the video we have no way of knowing whether you’re making it up or not.

FU “You are seriously JUMPING the shark with your POV about simple videos.”

No, I’m just pointing out how pointless your mention of the video is. What if I said I don’t believe that you saw such a video? That you’re just making it up? We have no way of knowing

Even if you did see a video out there, that still means little. Do you have any idea how many videos there are out there, and how easy it is for somebody to make a video that “proves” exactly what they want it to prove?

YOU could make a video that shows exactly what you said, using actors repeating lines that you wrote for them. I could make a video that shows the exact opposite. Such videos aren’t proof. They’re nothing.

But you don’t seem to understand that. You think that anybody that posts anything that’s pro cannabis must be wrong, even if they provide a medical research paper. You give more weight to a possibly faked video than you do the Journal of the American Medical Association. You’re an idiot!

As for “jumping the shark”, FU you’ve left the shark so far behind it’s just a faint memory.

FU “And can you get any more near libelous in your word usage in regards to my non word usage according to how you seem to want to "frame" what I'm not saying.. versus putting more words in my mouth?”

FU, I have never put words in your mouth. YOU on the other hand have tried to put many words in my mouth. Your first sentence in the post I’m responding to was an attempt to put words in my mouth.

You don’t even know what the word ‘libel’ means. Half the time your sentences are unintelligible. Your last sentence makes no sense other than to show that yet again, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:3,023
Points:70,405
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 11:17:43 AM

rjhenn: So you're saying that you have been carrying on in a libelous fashion with me? "Putting words in your mouth is often the only way to make sense out of your post."
When you went to school did teachers put words in your mouth?
Shockjock: Do I come across like a rocket scientist to you? Or do you just disapprove of some POVs that don't see things in a pro cannabis light?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,496
Points:2,730,715
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 8:54:53 AM

"Shockjock: I'm sorry that I didn't express myself more"

FU: Do you mena you are sorry for not expressing yourself correctly? Just showing yet another example where your "plain english" is anything but...
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,887
Points:2,748,600
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 1:16:12 AM

fueluser10 - "Are you going to tell me that YouTube has got some videos that you may find unsatisfactory?"

Apparently, you believe that YouTube videos are the equivalent of peer-reviewed scientific studies, but only if you agree with them.

"And can you get any more near libelous in your word usage in regards to my non word usage according to how you seem to want to "frame" what I'm not saying.. versus putting more words in my mouth?"

Putting words in your mouth is often the only way to make any sense out of what you post.
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:3,023
Points:70,405
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 10:20:29 PM

Shockjock: I'm sorry that I didn't express myself more..
Its crappy to complain about what someone expressed in here rather then asking what words might you be missing that could help us understand better in what you were trying to express?
I don't complain about how some in here express themselves now do I?
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:3,023
Points:70,405
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 9:53:27 PM

BT: Oh my god. Really.. can you possibly find any more fault in something that isn't pro cannabis supportive in nature?
Are you going to tell me that YouTube has got some videos that you may find unsatisfactory?
Maybe especially in regards to cannabis use that may not be pro cannabis supportive in nature?
You are seriously JUMPING the shark with your POV about simple videos.
And can you get any more near libelous in your word usage in regards to my non word usage according to how you seem to want to "frame" what I'm not saying.. versus putting more words in my mouth?



[Edited by: fueluser10 at 9/16/2014 9:58:54 PM EST]
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,874
Points:695,475
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 5:01:13 PM

FU “Have you seen some of the videos on YouTube? In regards to weed being smoked around kids?”

Strange isn’t it, that you have no problem watching YouTube videos that say things that you agree with but you absolutely refuse to look at any links that anybody posts if it’s to information that you don’t agree with.

Do you think perhaps there’s some bias there on your part?

FU “You act like the federal law is applying invisible hands cuffs around ones wrists?”

No, if a federal officer finds you disobeying the law the cuffs they put around your wrists are real ones.

In other words (since for some reason you can’t understand the acronym), the law is trying to force you to do things their way or else..

FU “Then either be happy with medical marijuana.”

It’s only in the last day that you’ve suddenly switched to approving of medical marijuana. Up until now you’ve been totally against marijuana for any purpose.

FU “BY itself or get rid of the whole ideal altogether.”

Why?

Why does it have to be your way or no way?

Can’t you stand people being allowed to make their own decisions about whether or not to use marijuana?

FU “When you have medical marijuana being saddled by the casual users ideology then you have a constructed contradiction being born from it.”

Huh????? FU “I'm speaking BS? I about facts and not "facts" . Usually BS is more about dancing around for the sake of lip servicing then it can be used in a constructive manner.”

You very seldom, if ever, present any facts whatsoever. Most of what you post is “what if seemingly .. “ and then you go off on some hypothetical story that might not ever happen.

Or you dance around and pay lip service to your POV (funny how you do understand that acronym) without ever giving any facts to support it.

And you NEVER bother to look at any facts that anybody else presents. I guess because you’re afraid you might be wrong?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,496
Points:2,730,715
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 1:40:08 PM

" I don't know.. how do you smoke alcohol?"

Good question FU, but you are the one who stated it was being done by teenagers...

"Because the same could be said for the scenario of teens smoking cigarettes or even alcohol for that matter."

" Usually BS is more about dancing around for the sake of lip servicing then it can be used in a constructive manner."

Which is exaactly why people think your posts are nothing more then BS...
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,098
Points:419,405
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 1:23:18 PM

"The federal law is SOCIETY picking and taking care after itself."

No more so that the massive dissent here and elsewhere is.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,887
Points:2,748,600
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 1:18:10 PM

fueluser10 - "The federal law is SOCIETY picking and taking care after itself."

Then it's a complete failure.

"I'm speaking BS? I about facts and not "facts" ."

Funny, I don't see you presenting much in the way of facts, mostly just opinion and emotion.
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:3,023
Points:70,405
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 12:45:07 PM

BT: (Have you seen some of the videos on YouTube? In regards to weed being smoked around kids?)
The federal law is SOCIETY picking and taking care after itself.
You act like the federal law is applying invisible hands cuffs around ones wrists? That would make for a heck of a talk show topic wouldn't it?
Then either be happy with medical marijuana.. BY itself or get rid of the whole ideal altogether.
When you have medical marijuana being saddled by the casual users ideology then you have a constructed contradiction being born from it.
I'm speaking BS? I about facts and not "facts" . Usually BS is more about dancing around for the sake of lip servicing then it can be used in a constructive manner.
Shockjock: I don't know.. how do you smoke alcohol?


[Edited by: fueluser10 at 9/16/2014 12:46:52 PM EST]
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,874
Points:695,475
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 10:43:06 AM

FU, the whole purpose of making a law banning something is to take conscious choice away from people. The law is an attempt to force people to do things a certain way and not let them make a choice.

Why do you have so much trouble understanding that concept?

Yeah, exactly how many times have you seen teenagers smoking weed around toddlers? I’ve NEVER seen it happen in my life, EVER! Parents of teenagers don’t let them do things like that around their children.

The federal law isn’t speaking for those toddlers. If it was, then the law would say ‘you can’t use marijuana within ‘x-#’ of feet of a child under the age of ‘y’. But the federal law doesn’t say that. The federal law says that NOBODY can use marijuana ANYWHERE, not even in the privacy of their own home where there are no children of any age. So you’re just speaking BS.

But again, since the prohibition of marijuana makes it easier for teens to get it, then in actual fact YOU are inadvertently supporting such things happening.

Again, if you’re fine with medical marijuana, then why do you support a law that bans medical marijuana? You’re contradicting yourself.

Sure curiosity feeds experimentation. But with teenagers, many do things, even break the law, just to make themselves seem important to other teenagers. So the law banning marijuana actually makes them want to do it more

No, your last post doesn’t sound like a flight of fancy. But your previous one (and many others) sure do.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,496
Points:2,730,715
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 10:34:14 AM

"Because when the adults are away the teenagers will play. And I got to thinking.. are the teenager girls maybe being impressed by the guys smoking weed or vice versa?"

Again, it's illegal for teenagers to smoke marijuana, so how does making it legal for adults change your described example FU?

"Because the same could be said for the scenario of teens smoking cigarettes or even alcohol for that matter."

Also illegal (just have to wonder... How exactly do you smoke alcohol?) despite it being legal for adults to indulge. So what exactly is your point?

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 9/16/2014 10:36:12 AM EST]
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:3,023
Points:70,405
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 9:48:35 AM

Using weed is a matter of conscious choice versus common sense.
And when I see teenagers smoking weed stuffed into a swisher sweet cigar and they are consciously smoking it around toddlers within feet of them.
Do or do not the toddlers have a freedom of choice to not have it smoked around them?
The federal law banning the weed is speaking for those kids.
I'm fine with weed for medical purposes. But not for casual purposes.
I had the crap smoked around me when I was a teenager. Because when the adults are away the teenagers will play. And I got to thinking.. are the teenager girls maybe being impressed by the guys smoking weed or vice versa?
Because the same could be said for the scenario of teens smoking cigarettes or even alcohol for that matter.
Curiosity feeds experimentation then experimentation feeds a habit and then a habit becomes chronic.
BT: Laughing about your flight of fancy comment. Does the above sound like a flight of fancy? Or when it comes to some intoxicants man doesn't act certain ways?

[Edited by: fueluser10 at 9/16/2014 9:51:05 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,098
Points:419,405
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 9:13:00 AM

Well if you don't want to smell it fuel that's your preference. But to support a law banning it even from the confines of another's home because you don't like the smell is unreasonable.

I don't like the smell of skunks. Let's make it illegal for them to emit that odor and lock em all up and spend a bunch of money doing it.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,887
Points:2,748,600
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 7:17:09 PM

fueluser10 - "IF WEED is against the law.
Then what is your point SemiSteve?"

His point, obviously, is the same as the point of this topic: should marijuana be legal or not?

You keep saying no, but your only reasons for it seem to be "the law is the law" and "I don't like pot".
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,874
Points:695,475
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 6:04:34 PM

And as usual FU doesn't respond directly to anything that anybody said but instead goes off on yet another flight of fancy.

Is there some reason why it's impossible for you to answer any questions FU? Are you not able to come up with actual responses to any of the points anybody makes? Do you have nothing to defend your points with?

Just why do you inhabit this thread anyway?
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:3,023
Points:70,405
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 5:57:37 PM

BT: I'm not asking you to do a thing but to stop complaining about things that aren't pro cannabis to your liking and have a debate outside of the "Green Box."


[Edited by: fueluser10 at 9/15/2014 6:00:18 PM EST]
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:3,023
Points:70,405
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 5:45:10 PM

IF WEED is against the law.
Then what is your point SemiSteve?
Those in society whom want nothing to do with being smoked around them and someone is smoking weed causally in society.. is their conscious choice maybe not dictating to others?
That variation of what "a freedom of choice" is.. isn't maybe violating the non weed smoker's "freedom of choice" as well?
Damn why doesn't someone just come up with a T shirt that says:
"PLEASE".. don't smoke WEED around me.
Do you and I really have time for this mess? (Printed on the thing.)
Maybe this is why society seems so divided right now for it seems to me that some like the divisiveness.
And like I said before we are better then this as a species. Yet this is how we are seemingly defining ourselves?

[Edited by: fueluser10 at 9/15/2014 5:52:58 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,098
Points:419,405
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 4:41:58 PM

"Would legalizing need not in a way be looked at as catering to the casual user crowd in a matter of speaking? "

And the problem with this is ... ?

People wish to exercise freedom. You do not. Fine. So don't. But don't tell them what they can and can not do. This is overstepping your bounds.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,887
Points:2,748,600
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 3:45:06 PM

fueluser10 - "That's why the federal law banning weed is in place. To give others the deserve benefit of doubt rather then just following the crowd."

Yet all the law does is try to force people to follow one particular crowd. Without any benefit of the doubt.

"And sometimes people choices get other people hurt or possibly high IE like weed."

What does this have to do with whether or not pot should be legal?

"I'm expressing PLAIN English, I'm not hard to read."

No, you're just difficult to understand.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,874
Points:695,475
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 3:20:50 PM

FU “SOCIETY is every-bodies business.”

It stops being society’s business when it does no harm to anybody else other than the one doing it.

That’s why alcohol is legal. Drinking by itself in moderation causes no harm to the individual and may actually be healthier than not drinking at all. Society has no say in whether you can have a glass of wine with dinner, or a bottle of beer watching the game.

Society has no say in alcohol use until it harms, or at least has the potential to harm others, such as when somebody drinks too much and gets behind the wheel.

FU “So I don't see how you can say that.”

No, you don’t seem to be able to see how anybody can say anything that doesn’t follow your narrow way of life.

FU “We share a nationwide infrastructure.
We all pay taxes.
When we go to a hospital there are a slew of strangers that we possibly get to interact with.
When we go shopping more stranger interaction.
Humanity has needs and humanity created infrastructures to meet those needs.”

All of which is irrelevant.

FU We are for the most part a part of each others business each and everyday.”

No, we’re only each others business if we do something to get into each other’s space and somehow affect what they’re doing.

For instance, in the shopping interaction you’re talking about, if you and I are in a store together, what I look at, what I buy, why I want to buy it, what I’m going to use it for, etc. are none of your business. And what you look at, buy, etc. is none of my business.

The only time it becomes the other’s business is maybe if we both want the same item and there’s only one left, or we physically bump into each other in the store. We might or might not say “hello” to each other, but for the most part, unless you do something to interfere with somebody else, what you do is none of their business.

FU “And sometimes people choices get other people hurt or possibly high IE like weed.”

When those times get other people hurt then it becomes their business. But if somebody is getting high in their recroom while watching cartoons, and not hurting anybody, that’s none of your business.

If you still think somebody getting high on marijuana in the privacy of their own home and not hurting anybody else, then please state how you think it IS your business. I’d really like to know how you think it’s your business to interfere with somebody else’s harmless activities in the privacy of their own home. Maybe if you can show how that happens you should be awarded a million dollars as some sort of genius.

FU “And its not the laws fault but the individuals fault.”

If it wasn’t for an unjust law then their wouldn’t be any fault, would there?

I don’t drink coffee. I don’t like the taste of it and I don’t even like the smell of it. Coffee CAN be harmful. People have actually died from drinking too much coffee. In high enough doses coffee can cause hallucinations and even at low doses there’s a coffee “high” of euphoria and excitement (which is why it’s such a popular drug and is now sold in high-strength beverages like energy drinks.

So should I be allowed to have a law passed that says coffee is illegal? After all, I can give the same reasons for coffee that you give for marijuana, with the exception that I can actually PROVE that coffee can be dangerous. If you don’t think coffee should be illegal, then why do you think marijuana should be illegal?

FU “Shockjock: You don't want to get me going about grammar dude.”

Why not? It would be good for a laugh. You have worse grammar than the lead scientist I work with. He was born in China and got his PhD in Germany so his grammar is sometimes a bit odd. But I can understand almost everything he says compared to you.

FU “Some of the words and grammar that I have heard away from this topic forum..”

Since we’re IN this topic forum and not away from it, then what does what you hear elsewhere matter?

FU “.. would if it could make this topic forum change from white to a redish pink from making it almost blush.”

So you can swear. Big deal. So can I. But unlike you, I’m not so rude as to do it here so frequently.

FU “I'm expressing PLAIN English, I'm not hard to read.”

The individual words are easy to read. It’s the haphazard, ungrammatical way you string several of them together in unlikely combinations that makes no sense.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,874
Points:695,475
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 2:55:58 PM

FU “I am not here to mentally kiss your behind verbiage wise.”

So why do you think I should do it for you?

FU “So if you can't figure out what I'm saying.. when I am being slang free and technology "lingo" free.”

I’m not the only one who’s said that they can’t understand what you’re talking about. So why do you pick on me?

FU “Then maybe you don't want to get what I've been trying to say in here…”

Right. That’s why I’ve so often asked you to explain what you mean, because I don’t want to ‘get’ what you’re trying to say.

FU “When it comes to things like weed (Medical use of weed is fine) but other then that man is holding himself back.”

That’s strange because up until now you’ve rejected every medical use for marijuana that anybody has presented too. You just keep repeating that it should be illegal and then going off on some unintelligible tangent.

There are many ways that individual men hold themselves back. Are you suggesting we pass laws to tell all those people that they can’t live their lives as they choose either, but that they have to do things your way?

That sounds much like the extremists over in Iraq and Syria.

FU “No it should not be legal.”

Then give us the reasons why it should not be legal. Just saying that “seemingly some kids might see others using it” isn’t a reason

FU “We are better then this as a species. Yet this is how we are seemingly defining ourselves?”

So now, just like Isis, al Qaeda and the Taliban, you think it’s your place to tell us how we should all behave as a species?

Tell you what FU, you’ve got about 6.99 billion people with different ideas than yours. Making laws to suit the disapproval of a small minority isn’t going to cut it.

FU “That's why the federal law banning weed is in place.”

No, that’s not why the federal law is in place. It was put in place for the reasons that ldheinz listed (plus a couple of others). It stays in place because there are many people who don’t seem to be smart enough to question a law that ‘seemingly’ doesn’t have any good reason behind it. They think that just because they don’t like something that nobody else should be allowed to do it either.

FU “To give others the deserve benefit of doubt rather then just following the crowd.”

And what “benefit of the doubt” does it give others FU? What “crowd” are they following? If you can’t (or won’t) answer those questions, then you really don’t have a point.

So CAN you answer those questions or are you just following the “I don’t like it so nobody should be allowed to do it” crowd?

There are lots of people who don’t like Muslims, or Jews. Should being a Muslim or a Jew be banned? What about Christians?
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,874
Points:695,475
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 1:42:08 PM

"IF IT WERE LEGAL, it would not be an issue. What a lazy mantra."

You mean a lazy mantra as compared to "It should stay illegal because it's illegal"?

Or how about "The law is the law, (that's why it should be illegal)".

Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,496
Points:2,730,715
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 12:17:14 PM

"I'm expressing PLAIN English, I'm not hard to read"

How is this "plain" english"?

"But boy if some don't come to this topic forum and verbally echo from the floor and to the ceiling and then back down to the floor of the topic forum with a pro cannabis reverence"

or this

"NORML has its representations to present right? The non pro cannabis side deserves some representations presented as well to right?"

or this

"Some of the pro cannabis commentators at the bottom of the story about the study.. expressed the same term in regards to the worry that they saw the story as a hindrance to the legalizing of weed"

or this

"But I guess when verbiage water needs to be carried for an ideal.. topic forums become the water carrying "website" provided water holding towers"

or this

"That poster I'm sure has irked some who have actually read its NEUTRAL wording."

Do you get the point?
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:3,023
Points:70,405
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 11:50:11 AM

Idheinz; SOCIETY is every-bodies business. So I don't see how you can say that.
We share a nationwide infrastructure.
We all pay taxes.
When we go to a hospital there are a slew of strangers that we possibly get to interact with.
When we go shopping more stranger interaction.
Humanity has needs and humanity created infrastructures to meet those needs.
We are for the most part a part of each others business each and everyday.
And sometimes people choices get other people hurt or possibly high IE like weed.
And its not the laws fault but the individuals fault.
Shockjock: You don't want to get me going about grammar dude. Some of the words and grammar that I have heard away from this topic forum would if it could make this topic forum change from white to a redish pink from making it almost blush.
I'm expressing PLAIN English, I'm not hard to read.

[Edited by: fueluser10 at 9/15/2014 11:56:41 AM EST]
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,043
Points:2,902,345
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 11:35:19 AM

fueluser10 - "Idheinz: No it should not be legal. "

WHY shouldn't it be legal? You just assume that without ever giving a reason.

fueluser10 - "We are better then this as a species. "

Better than what? What's wrong with it? You just won't say.

fueluser10 - "Yet this is how we are seemingly defining ourselves?"

No. Nobody defines themselves that way. But many people would like to be able to use it if they want to without risking prison time for a completely harmless activity.

fueluser10 - "That's why the federal law banning weed is in place. "

No, the federal law banning weed was put in place to protect wood pulp paper manufacturers' profit margins by outlawing cheap hemp paper, and to protect DuPont's profit margins by preventing cheap hemp fabrics. It had nothing to do with protecting the public.

fueluser10 - "To give others the deserve benefit of doubt rather then just following the crowd. "

Why do you think that this is any of your business? Why can't people live their lives as they choose?

Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,496
Points:2,730,715
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 11:31:33 AM

"So if you can't figure out what I'm saying.. when I am being slang free and technology "lingo" free"

I think the reason your posts are so difficult is so hard to understand is that they are grammatically "free", as in the lack of.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,496
Points:2,730,715
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 11:28:39 AM

"Shockjock: IF IT WERE LEGAL, it would not be an issue. What a lazy mantra"

Sorrry FU, it's not a mantra, it's the simple truth.
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:3,023
Points:70,405
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 11:03:07 AM

BT: I am not here to mentally kiss your behind verbiage wise.
So if you can't figure out what I'm saying.. when I am being slang free and technology "lingo" free.
Then maybe you don't want to get what I've been trying to say in here that isn't pro cannabis in nature. (And that's fine.)
When it comes to things like weed (Medical use of weed is fine) but other then that man is holding himself back.
Idheinz: No it should not be legal. We are better then this as a species. Yet this is how we are seemingly defining ourselves?
That's why the federal law banning weed is in place. To give others the deserve benefit of doubt rather then just following the crowd.

[Edited by: fueluser10 at 9/15/2014 11:08:38 AM EST]
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,043
Points:2,902,345
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 11:01:41 AM

fueluser10 - "IF IT WERE LEGAL, it would not be an issue."

But it SHOULD be legal. THAT'S the issue. It's also the topic of this discussion.

[Edited by: ldheinz at 9/15/2014 11:02:08 AM EST]
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:3,023
Points:70,405
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 10:57:03 AM

Shockjock: IF IT WERE LEGAL, it would not be an issue. What a lazy mantra.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,874
Points:695,475
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 14, 2014 8:49:54 AM

FU “Legalizing weed becomes a part of the capitalism cog? This is somehow fortunate for society? Yeah right..”

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You're writing it as if you think you're responding to something I said but since I never said anything even remotely like that, then you make no sense whatsoever. (What a surprise!)

But there's no point in asking what the hell you're talking about since you're too (stubborn??) to ever explain yourself and too rude to ever answer a question.

FU “I don't want the entertainment industry commercially coming up with ways to grant my "Entertainment" needs.”

Again, nothing that makes any sense. That has no connection to anything that's been said.

FU “Now apply that same analogy to the legalizing of weed.. and that doesn't seem to ring true philosophy wise in that sense as well?”

What analogy is to be applied? You haven't made an analogy. More stupidity.

FU “And I'm very sure that there is at-least one "LOOK OUT" watching out for security or maybe even CONCERNED eyes of the other concert goers wondering while some are smoking weed?”

Security at most concerts don't bother with marijuana. At least half the rock concerts I've been to you can smell marijuana and yet I have NEVER seen security throw somebody out for it or arrest them like you would like them to do.

FU “And how many teenagers might be attending these concerts as well?”

Depending on the type of music in the concert sometimes as much as ALL the people are attending are teenagers. Are you ignorant of the fact that most of the people smoking marijuana at these concerts ARE the teenagers? Go to a Neil Diamond concert, it's mostly old people, no marijuana. Go to a rap music concert, it's mostly young people, lots of marijuana.

Since you didn't know that it's just more proof that you don't know what you're talking about and that you know almost nothing about teenagers.

FU “Isn't it a curious notion knowing that some are setting an curious example for others while smoking weed at some concerts?”

Do you have a point or are you just putting random thoughts together again?

FU “I'm telling other how to love their lives?.. BULL****.. PEOPLE decide on a daily how to live THEIR lives.”

If you're at a concert and you report somebody for smoking marijuana and want to have them arrested and you say that you're not trying to enforce your idea of how they should live on them? Tell me another one FU. You're so full of something smelly that comes out of the back end of a bull it amazing you can stand your own stench.

FU “(I don't TELL others how to live their lives.) And I'm not going to tell you how to express your POV, nor how to live your life either. I don't indulge in that well crafted BS practice.”

If you didn't want them to live their lives as you think they should live their lives, then why would you try to have them arrested?

Oh wait. That's a question designed to make you actually try to think about what you're saying, so we know you won't answer it.

FU “BUT I will express my disagreement with you.”

Strange that you can never explain why you disagree with anybody. And that you're unable to actually respond to what they say.

FU “And whether some may want to admit it or not, those choices do affect others and their individual civil rights.”

Yeah, and what civil right of yours would be trampled on if you got a short whiff of marijuana at a concert? None.

What civil rights would be harmed if you reported every person you thought might be smoking marijauna at a concert and security had to try to throw each one out and it started riots all over the concert so that it had to be cancelled?

Or is that “seemingly” too difficult a question for you to answer?

FU “Do some parents not have the right to not worry about an adult smoking weed around their teenagers at a concert?”

I call .. BULL****.. on that one FU. It's the teenagers who are smoking weed around the adults that's the problem.

FU “(AND go ahead and play the "You're not a parent card.") I know as soon as you read that line.. your usual POV on that is going fly from your fingers tips as they fly across your keyboard.)”

You've admitted that you're not a parent. You've proved that you know nothing about raising children. Why do persist in trying to speak for other people? Let them speak for themselves.

FU “REALLY, causing a riot? Are you possibly about drumming up "drama" BT?”

If for example there were perhaps seemingly 20,000 people at a concert and 1,000 of them were smoking pot and 200 security people tried to throw those 1,000 smokers out you imagine that there wouldn't be a riot.

What and when was the last concert you went to FU? Do you ever go to concerts where there are teenagers or is this another example of you trying to talk about something that again you have no knowledge or experience about?

FU “No, but I think you would have some of the non pot smokers who might have possibly gotten apprehended maybe having a few choice words for the pot smokers after the concert was over.”

Usually the ones that they “have choice words for” are the security people who dared to interrupt their enjoyment of the concert by creating a disturbance. Contrary to your imaginations, the majority of teenagers don't care one way or the other about somebody smoking pot. If they don't like, they move away, they don't try to get the person arrested (ie, force their idea of how to live on the pot smokers).
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,496
Points:2,730,715
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Sep 14, 2014 6:38:28 AM

"And if some PEOPLE are smoking weed at a concert I'm leaving the venue. I'm not going to sit there and HOPE THAT SECURITY MIGHT NOT NOTICE weed being smoked because someone or they noticed the smell of the weed smoke on the air.
Then maybe calling the law to come to the concert to maybe apprehend the weed smokers and maybe others on the spot for being near them."

If Marijuana were legalized, you wouldn't have to worry about that...
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:3,023
Points:70,405
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Sep 13, 2014 11:29:41 PM

BT: Legalizing weed becomes a part of the capitalism cog? This is somehow fortunate for society? Yeah right..
I don't want the entertainment industry commercially coming up with ways to grant my "Entertainment" needs.
Now apply that same analogy to the legalizing of weed.. and that doesn't seem to ring true philosophy wise in that sense as well?
It sure sounds like it to me.
BT: And I'm very sure that there is at-least one "LOOK OUT" watching out for security or maybe even CONCERNED eyes of the other concert goers wondering while some are smoking weed?
And how many teenagers might be attending these concerts as well? Isn't it a curious notion knowing that some are setting an curious example for others while smoking weed at some concerts?
BT: I'm telling other how to love their lives?.. BULL****.. PEOPLE decide on a daily how to live THEIR lives.
(I don't TELL others how to live their lives.) And I'm not going to tell you how to express your POV, nor how to live your life either. I don't indulge in that well crafted BS practice.
BUT I will express my disagreement with you.
And whether some may want to admit it or not, those choices do affect others and their individual civil rights.
Do some parents not have the right to not worry about an adult smoking weed around their teenagers at a concert?
(AND go ahead and play the "You're not a parent card.") I know as soon as you read that line.. your usual POV on that is going fly from your fingers tips as they fly across your keyboard.)
REALLY, causing a riot? Are you possibly about drumming up "drama" BT?
No, but I think you would have some of the non pot smokers who might have possibly gotten apprehended maybe having a few choice words for the pot smokers after the concert was over.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,874
Points:695,475
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 13, 2014 9:07:04 PM

FU “Would legalizing need not in a way be looked at as catering to the casual user crowd in a matter of speaking?”

Rhetorical question as different people are obviously each going to have their own way of looking at it.

FU “((Off topic. It would seem that we have entertainment that caters to people on a near chronically created basis. (IE movies and music.) When some create an easy to produce product (It's been spared the need of putting some original thought into it. And some will flock to it and purchase it.))”

That's so off topic that it makes no sense. What was the point you were trying to make?

FU “But boy if some don't come to this topic forum and verbally echo from the floor and to the ceiling and then back down to the floor of the topic forum with a pro cannabis reverence.”

Huh? Are you trying to say that only those opposed to legalizing marijuana should be able to say anything?

FU “And then question the term of "self responsibility" and bemoan the federal law that is in place in regards to weed.”

Since obeying the law is the exact opposite of “self responsibility” then yes, your statement IS questionable.

FU “And if some PEOPLE are smoking weed at a concert I'm leaving the venue. I'm not going to sit there and HOPE THAT SECURITY MIGHT NOT NOTICE weed being smoked because someone or they noticed the smell of the weed smoke on the air.”

You don't go to many concerts do you? The smell of marijuana is common at rock concerts. And security usually pays no attention.

FU “Then maybe calling the law to come to the concert to maybe apprehend the weed smokers and maybe others on the spot for being near them.”

Thanks for finally admitting that you DO want to tell others how to live their lives. It's not you job to report to security and get them to “apprehend the weed smokers” but if you did that is definitely an example of trying to make others live their lives the way you want them to.

FU “Wow, that would make for a delightful night now wouldn't it.”

You think causing a riot and ending the concert would make for a delightful night?
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:3,023
Points:70,405
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Sep 13, 2014 7:37:53 PM

Would legalizing need not in a way be looked at as catering to the casual user crowd in a matter of speaking?
((Off topic. It would seem that we have entertainment that caters to people on a near chronically created basis. (IE movies and music.) When some create an easy to produce product (It's been spared the need of putting some original thought into it. And some will flock to it and purchase it.))
But boy if some don't come to this topic forum and verbally echo from the floor and to the ceiling and then back down to the floor of the topic forum with a pro cannabis reverence.
And then question the term of "self responsibility" and bemoan the federal law that is in place in regards to weed.
And if some PEOPLE are smoking weed at a concert I'm leaving the venue. I'm not going to sit there and HOPE THAT SECURITY MIGHT NOT NOTICE weed being smoked because someone or they noticed the smell of the weed smoke on the air.
Then maybe calling the law to come to the concert to maybe apprehend the weed smokers and maybe others on the spot for being near them.
Wow, that would make for a delightful night now wouldn't it.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,925
Points:817,585
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2014 2:07:51 PM

I've been on the lawn at Jimmy Buffett concerts. The people there who were high [most, if only from the contact high] were not being very self-responsible.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,887
Points:2,748,600
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2014 1:22:11 PM

fueluser10 - "Its called being 'self responsible.'"

If you're being "self responsible", then why have laws in the first place?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,887
Points:2,748,600
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2014 1:21:05 PM

SemiSteve - "We learned that lesson with alcohol prohibition, which spurred the formation of gangs and violent racketeering. Those things did not exist prior to prohibition."

Actually, they did exist before Prohibition.

Prohibition just provided them with a lot more traction.

Traction they're still getting from The War on Drugs.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,887
Points:2,748,600
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2014 1:18:49 PM

fueluser10 - "Huge hypothetical question:"

???

Your "Huge hypothetical question" appears to be nothing but huge nonsense.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,098
Points:419,405
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2014 12:58:18 PM

fueluser10: "Laws don't don't harm people."

This one does. It has gotten many killed and will continue to do so until we change it.

We learned that lesson with alcohol prohibition, which spurred the formation of gangs and violent racketeering. Those things did not exist prior to prohibition.
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:3,023
Points:70,405
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2014 12:43:04 PM

Laws don't don't harm people. PEOPLE harm themselves and sometimes each other. However some may want to apply reverse psychology to some notions.
That's why simply written laws are created and put into place.
Its called being "self responsible."
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:3,023
Points:70,405
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2014 12:37:57 PM

Huge hypothetical question:
I don't know why some cities maybe just don't go ahead and develop some "post weed smoking users" vehicle lanes? (Can some imagine the "study" that might come about from that notion?)
And the lines on the weed users only road could be painted in a neon green paint with white highlights around each long rectangular green line.
This way the regularly utilized roads and the sober drivers won't have their driving being impeded by drivers who are driving around possibly high.
I can only imagine the future topic forum being dedicated to that conversation piece.
Post a reply Back to Topics