Spread the word and share. Please sign this petition on change.org


-----------------------

Hey,

I just signed the petition "William M. Stanley, Jr.: Recommend SB 686 (decriminalization of simple marijuana possession) to the full Virginia General Assembly Senate Floor" and wanted to see if you could help by adding your name.

Our goal is to reach 2,500 signatures and we need more support. You can read more and sign the petition here:

https://www.change.org/p/william-m-stanley-jr-recommend-sb-686-decriminalization-of-simple-marijuana-possession-to-the-full-virginia-general-assembly-senate-floor?recruiter=198440336&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive

Thanks!

I'm with you, brother. Too many lives ruined by over zealous police and prosecutors over a drug that kills less people than coffee.

Depending on ur body chemistry, MJ can be tested positive in one's body for over a month. Besides a hair sample test, what other indulged party compound can do that?.... I hope SB 686 is passed. Alcohol is more damaging.

Here's an idea...follow the damn rules and you won't get arrested. What a bunch of fucking retards. If you want to waste your life and smoke pot, move to MD or some other state.

I bet none of you have steady, honest work at all.

That's all you gotta do?

"Follow the rules" like they told you to do when you're 5 years old?

Don't you ever grow up and get to voice your opinion in a representative government?

Think for yourself?

Or, do you just want to follow the rules that are stuffed down your ever-accepting face?

The right-wing is just a mass of born followers in search of the next demagogue. It's kind of pathetic. Well, worse than that actually.

It would be good to legalize it, I am sure it will be in 20 or so years. It should be allowed in your home, or a shop with a license to sell. Not on the the road or in public. It is a infringement on personal rights to keep it illegal....just a thought from a cop who worked narcotics at one point....don't blame the police, blame the corrupt politicians that make the laws the police took and oath and are required too enforce.

Utiltarian man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's all you gotta do?
>
> "Follow the rules" like they told you to do when
> you're 5 years old?
>
> Don't you ever grow up and get to voice your
> opinion in a representative government?
>
> Think for yourself?
>
> Or, do you just want to follow the rules that are
> stuffed down your ever-accepting face?

Dude, Shut the fuck up and go back to Reddit. Matter of fact, go waste your life smoking pot and being a law breaker. I hope you get arrested one day and I hope they throw your ass in prison.

I've noticed that pot heads get real upset when somebody speaks out against legalization and resort to extraordinary measures to discredit that person via character attacks. You don't know me or what I subscribe to so where do you get off claiming that?

Heaven forbid I have a differing opinion than you. Grow the hell up and get a life you degenerate piece of shit. I follow the rules because if I don't, I end up in jail or worse. You know what, go ahead and shoot at a cop, Mr. I break the Rules. If you aren't killed, you'll wind up in jail being some black dudes fucking bitch.

The founding fathers didn't follow the rules.
GW even grew the dastardly weed

... especially in Lol@U's case, where it's to point out that he's a hypocritical asshole; as shown by the fact that he said this:

LoL@U Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've noticed that pot heads get real upset when
> somebody speaks out against legalization and
> resort to extraordinary measures to discredit that
> person via character attacks.

And then goes on to do exactly that, as evidenced here:

> Grow the hell up and get a life you degenerate
> piece of shit.

> ... go waste your life smoking pot and being a law
> breaker.

Utiltarian man may be all those things, but at least he's not a hypocritical asshole like Lol@U.

>The founding fathers didn't follow the rules.
GW even grew the dastardly weed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ain't Legal Now Bucko, Blaze get caught and your fucked, Dont think its no biggie. Depends on what you want to do with the rest of your life

Looks like LoL@u is a boot licking little bitch. Politicians love sheep like him.

Utilitarian man does not smoke pot.

t roll Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The founding fathers didn't follow the rules.
> GW even grew the dastardly weed

GW grew hemp for rope. You pot-lovers are as stupid as you were in the 60s.

No path to a floor vote for this one. Sorry.

Sober for 10+ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GW grew hemp for rope. You pot-lovers are as
> stupid as you were in the 60s.
>
> No path to a floor vote for this one. Sorry.

Even stupider is not taking this drug off the streets and into to the ABC stores. The War On Drugs has been such a costly disaster, how any rational person could still be for it is beyond me.

All you NOVA pot heads need to move to Colorado or Washington State. Last time I checked the Devil's lettuce (as my friends mom used to call weed) is highly illegal in Virginia (and that is not likely to change for at least the next 15-20 years if even then). Yeah you might say pot *is* be safer than drinking but getting reamed up the ass in jail cause you got busted and/or fucking up your possible future employment opportunity's due to your criminal record does not sound too safe to me.

Just an FYI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Utilitarian man does not smoke pot.

The less U-man smokes, da mor for US!

It is his loss.... :)

cdsjfc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All you NOVA pot heads need to move to Colorado or
> Washington State. Last time I checked the Devil's
> lettuce (as my friends mom used to call weed) is
> highly illegal in Virginia (and that is not likely
> to change for at least the next 15-20 years if
> even then). Yeah you might say pot *is* be safer
> than drinking but getting reamed up the ass in
> jail cause you got busted and/or fucking up your
> possible future employment opportunity's due to
> your criminal record does not sound too safe to
> me.

So one could possibly be off the lettuce, and maintain their clearance, and perform at a lower level as if they were truly in equilibrium. If one's performance sucks, then can them. If one can perform while using the lettuce, so be it.

All things being equal, I'd rather work with a pot head than an alcoholic.

I love it when a pot head gets mad that I don't agree with them. Yes, I'm a sheep...a sheep for having an opinion that is different fm yours.

Good logic bro.

Who are you talking to?

Where is the nearest place to Cheyenne Mountain to legally buy pot?

sleepless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who are you talking to?

Whoever will listen. After getting bitched slapped, he's certainly not going to dare responding to anyone in particular.

Republicans imposed thier tyranny stopping D.C. citizens from choosing to legalize it. That would eventually have led to it being legalized in Virginia. You know who to blame.

If Republicans didnt control the House it would be legal in D.C.

cdsjfc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All you NOVA pot heads need to move to Colorado or
> Washington State. Last time I checked the Devil's
> lettuce (as my friends mom used to call weed) is
> highly illegal in Virginia (and that is not likely
> to change for at least the next 15-20 years if
> even then). Yeah you might say pot *is* be safer
> than drinking but getting reamed up the ass in
> jail cause you got busted and/or fucking up your
> possible future employment opportunity's due to
> your criminal record does not sound too safe to
> me.

The devils lettuce. Lol
You do know that god created it. Just like he created everything else. It isn't bad for you if used moderately.

Imagine how many legislators have smoked pot, and now want the book thrown at smokers. Hell, I bet some still do it. A hardcore anti-drug Republican congressman from Florida got busted for coke last year

It's amazing that people woudl rather smoke pot then hold down a job. Josh GOrdon comes to mind. He would rather waste his talents doing drugs than making money.

What a loser and the fact people stick up for him is sad. Potheads have the same old tired arguments but nothing new. Drug offenders need to be locked away for a long time. Instead of rewarding these idiots with an access to their fix, make an example out of them.

Why don't we build more private prisons in this country?

^^^^^
Please tell me that post is a joke.

^^^^^why are potheads amazed that opposition exists against their drug of choice?

http://www.theweedblog.com/dcs-new-attorney-general-says-marijuana-legalization-can-proceed/

This goober Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^^^why are potheads amazed that opposition
> exists against their drug of choice?

Because it's hard to comprehend that people can be so concerned with what other people put in their bodies. The anti-pot crowd is as bad as the people calling for trans-fats bans and making 120oz sodas illegal.

3EvP6 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This goober Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ^^^^^why are potheads amazed that opposition
> > exists against their drug of choice?
>
> Because it's hard to comprehend that people can be
> so concerned with what other people put in their
> bodies. The anti-pot crowd is as bad as the people
> calling for trans-fats bans and making 120oz sodas
> illegal.

They have valid concerns about driving while being high, the potential profits generated from legalization, the crime rate. Some don't even want it in their neighborhood and feel it will lead to trouble.

This isn't a simple thing, you moron.

L.E.A.P_End-the-War Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.theweedblog.com/dcs-new-attorney-genera
> l-says-marijuana-legalization-can-proceed/


A biased site giving false hope to potheads...LOLZ. What a dumb thing to argue about and fight for/against.

This goober Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^^^why are potheads amazed that opposition
> exists against their drug of choice?


Why do so many in the "Jus Say No" crowd assume those who favor decriminalization or legalization want to use pot? Many of us have looked at the results of the War on Drugs and have concluded the social and economic costs far exceed the benefit.

the last thing this area needs is more stoned out morons driving, stealing and leaching off the system (obama zombies)

how many of you stoners want your dentist, airplane pilot, surgeon or lawyer high on dope?

every junkie, tweeker and bagger started off smoking your innocent weed.

krok is coming to the area.

watch if you have the stones>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HLYnl7vEoY
Attachments:

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This goober Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ^^^^^why are potheads amazed that opposition
> > exists against their drug of choice?
>
>
> Why do so many in the "Jus Say No" crowd assume
> those who favor decriminalization or legalization
> want to use pot? Many of us have looked at the
> results of the War on Drugs and have concluded the
> social and economic costs far exceed the benefit.

Thats code for "I HATE THE GUBMINT" or "THE WOD IS RACIST AGAINST BLACKS". You haven't looked at shit and have latched on to one of those 2 schools of thinking. You seem perfectly fine with allowing the cartel to move into your neighborhood. You must be one of those liberals that preaches diversity, yet moves whenever a black family moves in to a nice house.

Fuck off and go open a book dude. The WOD is necessary and needs to keep going.

losers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> L.E.A.P_End-the-War Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> http://www.theweedblog.com/dcs-new-attorney-genera
>
> > l-says-marijuana-legalization-can-proceed/
>
>
> A biased site giving false hope to
> potheads...LOLZ. What a dumb thing to argue about
> and fight for/against.


Here you go idiot "LOLZ":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/karl-racine-first-elected-dc-attorney-general-prepares-to-get-to-work/2014/12/30/df51f13e-8a47-11e4-9e8d-0c687bc18da4_story.html

Ohh stop it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thats code for "I HATE THE GUBMINT" or "THE WOD IS
> RACIST AGAINST BLACKS". You haven't looked at shit
> and have latched on to one of those 2 schools of
> thinking. You seem perfectly fine with allowing
> the cartel to move into your neighborhood. You
> must be one of those liberals that preaches
> diversity, yet moves whenever a black family moves
> in to a nice house.
>
> Fuck off and go open a book dude. The WOD is
> necessary and needs to keep going.

Please explain how economically forcing drugs off the black market will give more power to cartels.

Or maybe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They have valid concerns about driving while being
> high...

Like driving while drunk, it's illegal. It's been shown the likelihood of causing an accident while drunk is five times greater than driving while high. Since there are even more valid concerns about drunk driving, should we outlaw the consumption of alcohol again because we're so concerned about DUI's?

> .. the potential profits generated from legalization,
> the crime rate. Some don't even want it in their
> neighborhood and feel it will lead to trouble.

Selling alongside liquor as a controlled intoxicant in the ABC stores would be an excellent solution in Virginia. Do you get upset and fear for your safety every time you go to a shopping center with an ABC store?

> This isn't a simple thing, you moron.

It is, but idiots like you make it complex with misguided and outdated viewpoints.

greensuedebeatleboots Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> how many of you stoners want your dentist,
> airplane pilot, surgeon or lawyer high on dope?

It'd be treated just like drinking on the job, you moron.

Ohh stop it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bill.N. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This goober Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ^^^^^why are potheads amazed that opposition
> > > exists against their drug of choice?
> >
> >
> > Why do so many in the "Jus Say No" crowd assume
> > those who favor decriminalization or
> legalization
> > want to use pot? Many of us have looked at the
> > results of the War on Drugs and have concluded
> the
> > social and economic costs far exceed the
> benefit.
>
> Thats code for "I HATE THE GUBMINT" or "THE WOD IS
> RACIST AGAINST BLACKS". You haven't looked at shit
> and have latched on to one of those 2 schools of
> thinking. You seem perfectly fine with allowing
> the cartel to move into your neighborhood. You
> must be one of those liberals that preaches
> diversity, yet moves whenever a black family moves
> in to a nice house.
>
> Fuck off and go open a book dude. The WOD is
> necessary and needs to keep going.


With Marijuana legalized, the cartel will be forced to only bring in other drugs for means of revenue. However, the demand for these drugs are no where close to that of Marijuana which in turn will make it easier for law enforcement to stop smuggling attempts and severely crippling their revenue stream.

I understand you feel marijiana is harmful so I invite you to look here for the real facts on the War on Drugs.

http://www.leap.cc

http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics

6CDwe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ohh stop it Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thats code for "I HATE THE GUBMINT" or "THE WOD
> IS
> > RACIST AGAINST BLACKS". You haven't looked at
> shit
> > and have latched on to one of those 2 schools
> of
> > thinking. You seem perfectly fine with allowing
> > the cartel to move into your neighborhood. You
> > must be one of those liberals that preaches
> > diversity, yet moves whenever a black family
> moves
> > in to a nice house.
> >
> > Fuck off and go open a book dude. The WOD is
> > necessary and needs to keep going.
>
> Please explain how economically forcing drugs off
> the black market will give more power to cartels.

It's pretty simple genius. If you stop patrolling these people, they'll have an incentive to set up shop north and spread their reign of terror. Have you seen Ciudad Juarez? Besides, if you really think crime will go down then you're crazy. CO and WA aren't good baseline states to judge the effects of legalization.

I'll admit this...the enforcement numbers aren't right. Blacks and Hispanics MAY be unfairly targeted by the WOD especially when its been shown that whites consume weed at higher rates than both groups. All that's needed then is a simple change in policy, not the ending of a good plan that initially didn't even focus on marijuana.

Big government yet small government police state yet individual freedom Republican shit heads think they should fill jails and institutionalize people based on marijuana use.

This is a serious societal problem and the dumb ass pukes on the right are to stupid to know it. It needs to be addressed and Americans are changing things.

L.E.A.P_End-the-War Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ohh stop it Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bill.N. Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > This goober Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > ^^^^^why are potheads amazed that
> opposition
> > > > exists against their drug of choice?
> > >
> > >
> > > Why do so many in the "Jus Say No" crowd
> assume
> > > those who favor decriminalization or
> > legalization
> > > want to use pot? Many of us have looked at
> the
> > > results of the War on Drugs and have
> concluded
> > the
> > > social and economic costs far exceed the
> > benefit.
> >
> > Thats code for "I HATE THE GUBMINT" or "THE WOD
> IS
> > RACIST AGAINST BLACKS". You haven't looked at
> shit
> > and have latched on to one of those 2 schools
> of
> > thinking. You seem perfectly fine with allowing
> > the cartel to move into your neighborhood. You
> > must be one of those liberals that preaches
> > diversity, yet moves whenever a black family
> moves
> > in to a nice house.
> >
> > Fuck off and go open a book dude. The WOD is
> > necessary and needs to keep going.
>
>
> With Marijuana legalized, the cartel will be
> forced to only bring in other drugs for means of
> revenue. However, the demand for these drugs are
> no where close to that of Marijuana which in turn
> will make it easier for law enforcement to stop
> smuggling attempts and severely crippling their
> revenue stream.
>
> I understand you feel marijiana is harmful so I
> invite you to look here for the real facts on the
> War on Drugs.
>
> http://www.leap.cc
>
> http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics


As far as I"m concerned it's a drug and needs to remain illegal, despite how safe it is or what biased facts come from these organizations. It's a shame we've allowed Libs and Libertarians to hijack the discussion about pot and move the country towards a direction that will inevitably lead towards legalization, hopefully on a state-by-state basis. D.A.R.E. is a good program, I got an A+ in it, and I guess I'm one of the few who's probably still drug and alcohol free. But in today's society, if you're either of that, you get made fun of and laughed at.

Why should I support you all ruining your bodies, which in turn causes me to pay more in health care costs? Why should I have to worry about that disgusting smell or if you're driving while high? I shouldn't just like I shouldn't with alcohol, but I do. Don't see any benefits from legalization, I think the over hyped pot business is just that, over hyped. It's surprising to see Libertarians actually support legalization because that will lead to government regulations...hypocrisy at its finest, but then again, most libertarians are stupid kids my age who only care about pot, nothing more.

I probably won't ever change my mind on this and I still say we should invest more in locking drug addicts up, rather then giving them access to the thing they sell and abuse.

Noperz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's pretty simple genius. If you stop patrolling
> these people, they'll have an incentive to set up
> shop north and spread their reign of terror. Have
> you seen Ciudad Juarez? Besides, if you really
> think crime will go down then you're crazy.

Here are some thigns to consider: these gangs thrive on the black market. Without a strong black market, there aren't nearly as strong. Where do you think they make the overwhelming majority of their money from? What do you think would happen if that source of income was slowed to a trickle? Only an idiot would think that by taking away money from gangs that it would make them stronger. For an example see the rise of organized crime with the start of the Prohibition and the sharp decline with the repealing of the Amendment. And what triggered the second increase in organized crime activity in the US during the 70's? The War On Drugs. Organized crime depends on the black market. Thee more illicit goods there are and the more demand is for those goods, then the stronger the black market will be.

> CO and WA aren't good baseline states to judge the
> effects of legalization.

Why? Because they don't fit your perceived notions about what the effects of legalization are?

> I'll admit this...the enforcement numbers aren't
> right. Blacks and Hispanics MAY be unfairly
> targeted by the WOD especially when its been shown
> that whites consume weed at higher rates than both
> groups.

No one here cares about that. This is not HuffPo or the DailyKos. This about legalization/decriminalization purely, STFU about race. You (or rather your camp) the only person in this thread to bring up race so far.

The anti-pot guy in this thread probably would make alcohol, obesity and trans-fats illegal too. Not that banning those things wouldn't make this country healthier, it's just not how it works here in America.

Much of the propaganda about the drug war is bs. And kids know it. The problem is, that once the kids are lied to on the subject, then many won't believe the real dangers of drugs. Many powerful people have made a lot of money off the drug war, and dont want to lose that cash cow. There have been major abuses upon our citizens due to the war on drugs, and the 'troubled teen industry' (Google that) is a multi billion dollar enterprise that, in many cases, worsens the kids problems. The private prison system makes a fortune off of it too. They are allowed to turn down many inmates, and prefer the nonviolent drug offenders because they are easier to control. Don't think the anti drug war is being waged in order to promote your best interests. Its led by fools that have no clue to what they are doing. And many profiteers donate very heavily to the political forces that keep their cash coming in.
Very few things are done by government that don't make money for someone. Don't be a sucker.
The gullible are welcomed to troll away and show their ignorance

LKtK9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The anti-pot guy in this thread probably would
> make alcohol, obesity and trans-fats illegal too.
> Not that banning those things wouldn't make this
> country healthier, it's just not how it works here
> in America.


So we should allow NAMBLA members to rape kids because it's America?

Hey look guys, its one of those "enlightened" people who think they know it all. Which message board told you all of that BS? Was it Reddit?

Another person who doesn't like the opinion of others.

I still want to know why you can't be against marijuana legalization?

wow!!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So we should allow NAMBLA members to rape kids
> because it's America?

It seems your don't understand the difference between letting some do what the please with their own body and rape. Actually rape is someone forcing to do what you don't want with your own body. Rape is much more the anti-pot camp's speed: control over someone else's body.

Still waiting for an answer. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I still want to know why you can't be against
> marijuana legalization?

You're fully entitled to hold your own opinions. And we're fully entitled to point out how wrong they are and why your line of thinking has let cartels take hold of the black market.

20 something Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> L.E.A.P_End-the-War Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ohh stop it Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Bill.N. Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > This goober Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > ^^^^^why are potheads amazed that
> > opposition
> > > > > exists against their drug of choice?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why do so many in the "Jus Say No" crowd
> > assume
> > > > those who favor decriminalization or
> > > legalization
> > > > want to use pot? Many of us have looked at
> > the
> > > > results of the War on Drugs and have
> > concluded
> > > the
> > > > social and economic costs far exceed the
> > > benefit.
> > >
> > > Thats code for "I HATE THE GUBMINT" or "THE
> WOD
> > IS
> > > RACIST AGAINST BLACKS". You haven't looked at
> > shit
> > > and have latched on to one of those 2 schools
> > of
> > > thinking. You seem perfectly fine with
> allowing
> > > the cartel to move into your neighborhood.
> You
> > > must be one of those liberals that preaches
> > > diversity, yet moves whenever a black family
> > moves
> > > in to a nice house.
> > >
> > > Fuck off and go open a book dude. The WOD is
> > > necessary and needs to keep going.
> >
> >
> > With Marijuana legalized, the cartel will be
> > forced to only bring in other drugs for means
> of
> > revenue. However, the demand for these drugs
> are
> > no where close to that of Marijuana which in
> turn
> > will make it easier for law enforcement to stop
> > smuggling attempts and severely crippling their
> > revenue stream.
> >
> > I understand you feel marijiana is harmful so I
> > invite you to look here for the real facts on
> the
> > War on Drugs.
> >
> > http://www.leap.cc
> >
> > http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics
>
>
> As far as I"m concerned it's a drug and needs to
> remain illegal, despite how safe it is or what
> biased facts come from these organizations. It's a
> shame we've allowed Libs and Libertarians to
> hijack the discussion about pot and move the
> country towards a direction that will inevitably
> lead towards legalization, hopefully on a
> state-by-state basis. D.A.R.E. is a good program,
> I got an A+ in it, and I guess I'm one of the few
> who's probably still drug and alcohol free. But in
> today's society, if you're either of that, you get
> made fun of and laughed at.
>
> Why should I support you all ruining your bodies,
> which in turn causes me to pay more in health care
> costs? Why should I have to worry about that
> disgusting smell or if you're driving while high?
> I shouldn't just like I shouldn't with alcohol,
> but I do. Don't see any benefits from
> legalization, I think the over hyped pot business
> is just that, over hyped. It's surprising to see
> Libertarians actually support legalization because
> that will lead to government
> regulations...hypocrisy at its finest, but then
> again, most libertarians are stupid kids my age
> who only care about pot, nothing more.
>
> I probably won't ever change my mind on this and I
> still say we should invest more in locking drug
> addicts up, rather then giving them access to the
> thing they sell and abuse.

The DARE program was shown to be a joke. It was promoted by the Drug Free America Foundation (dfaf) which is operated under the same tax id, and by the same people that operated a nationwide rehab system for teens called 'straight inc' (one was in springfield, Google it) which was shut down for many state violations, including some extremely brutal child abuse (rape, deprivation of sleep,food, and water, assaults, even a couple attempted murders. Nothing was ever reported to authorities because that would lead to an investigation) Nobody was prosecuted because the heads of the place were the top fundraisers for the national republican party. The ffx county da, robert horan, didn't prosecute because, quote " we just wanted them to go away".
Check for yourself. An intelligent person checks their facts before debating

wow!!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LKtK9 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The anti-pot guy in this thread probably would
> > make alcohol, obesity and trans-fats illegal
> too.
> > Not that banning those things wouldn't make
> this
> > country healthier, it's just not how it works
> here
> > in America.
>
>
> So we should allow NAMBLA members to rape kids
> because it's America?


Your the only one mentioning nambla. There is no comparison.
Your showing your ignorance if that's all you have for rebuttal

the real drug czar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The DARE program was shown to be a joke. It was
> promoted by the Drug Free America Foundation
> (dfaf) which is operated under the same tax id,
> and by the same people that operated a nationwide
> rehab system for teens called 'straight inc' (one
> was in springfield, Google it) which was shut down
> for many state violations, including some
> extremely brutal child abuse (rape, deprivation of
> sleep,food, and water, assaults, even a couple
> attempted murders. Nothing was ever reported to
> authorities because that would lead to an
> investigation) Nobody was prosecuted because the
> heads of the place were the top fundraisers for
> the national republican party. The ffx county da,
> robert horan, didn't prosecute because, quote " we
> just wanted them to go away".
> Check for yourself. An intelligent person checks
> their facts before debating

Yep, Straight Inc. did far more damage to young lives than pot ever did. Another interesting funding fact is that Above The Influence is funded by a consortium of alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical companies.

Some of you war on drugs gov't stooges sound like you just walked straight off the set of Reefer Madness circa 1936.
Square fuckin fags.....

Potheads think they have it all figured out but they don't. I'm willing to bet a majority of people on welfare are pot users.

Pothead Logic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Potheads think they have it all figured out but
> they don't. I'm willing to bet a majority of
> people on welfare are pot users.


Not everyone that supports legalization partakes
I'm willing to bet that everyone that favors throwing all drug users in jail are homeowner association wannabes that want to dicktaste to everyone how they should run every aspect of their lives

ok fine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pothead Logic Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Potheads think they have it all figured out but
> > they don't. I'm willing to bet a majority of
> > people on welfare are pot users.
>
>
> Not everyone that supports legalization partakes
> I'm willing to bet that everyone that favors
> throwing all drug users in jail are homeowner
> association wannabes that want to dicktaste to
> everyone how they should run every aspect of their
> lives

+1

Does anyone have a hard time reconciling our "free" society with drug enforcement...from a big picture view?

That is, in a "free society" and free market, shouldn't a free man should be able to ingest just about anything he wants...and, the "penalty" for any substandard performance that might come from that is whatever penalty a free market might deliver...less money, sh** job, etc...?

If you take too much and die, well, that sucks. But what happens if you shoot yourself in the head...drive too fast and crash...or otherwise do something to excess and die...too bad, right? That doesn't mean the gov takes those activities from everyone else, does it?

Sure, they regulate those activities...and tax 'em.

If you can ingest drugs in your home, and still make $$$, and have a good life, etc, well, good for you?

There are quite a few people that fit into the latter...they like to catch a buzz playing golf, maybe before dinner Friday and Saturday...the pressures of their life keep them on track otherwise, catching a buzz refreshes them and recharges them. They have good jobs, good families, etc. They don't become instant sh**heads because they get high.

And, on the other hand, aren't there plenty of sh**heads...who don't do drugs? They have bad jobs, or no jobs, are reckless, rude, unhealthy and otherwise drains on society? They do stupid redneck sh** like shoot at propane tanks. They are sh**heads, always have been, always will be...what are you gonna do-outlaw being a sh**head?

And sure, there are sh**heads who use drugs...so what. There are sh**heads who drive, own guns, take space in schools, are unhealthy, etc.

Otherwise, what is the idea? Is no drug use gonna make everyone "successful"? Of course, we know that can't be...if everyone is rich, no one is rich, right?

So, why does our government spend so much dang money on this effort? It isn't working, and not evrybody who uses drugs is a f***up, and not every f***up uses drugs.

Let the free market sort it out, penalize severely dangerous behaviour, but otherwise, let people do what they want.

Tax it. So, if someone makes money, and are otherwise productive, you can afford it...again, free market.

It should be known that I do not partake.

Is there a great deal of hypocrisy from folks talking about how "free" we are, who support "small government" yet they support the feds spending $65B per year, or whatever it is, on keeping people from smoking or eating stuff that makes their brains pleasantly fuzzy for a few hours?

The government has a duty to protect its citizens.

Marijuana is far less harmless than people will admit.

better forum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone have a hard time reconciling our
> "free" society with drug enforcement...from a big
> picture view?
>
> That is, in a "free society" and free market,
> shouldn't a free man should be able to ingest just
> about anything he wants...and, the "penalty" for
> any substandard performance that might come from
> that is whatever penalty a free market might
> deliver...less money, sh** job, etc...?
>
> If you take too much and die, well, that sucks.
> But what happens if you shoot yourself in the
> head...drive too fast and crash...or otherwise do
> something to excess and die...too bad, right? That
> doesn't mean the gov takes those activities from
> everyone else, does it?
>
> Sure, they regulate those activities...and tax
> 'em.
>
> If you can ingest drugs in your home, and still
> make $$$, and have a good life, etc, well, good
> for you?
>
> There are quite a few people that fit into the
> latter...they like to catch a buzz playing golf,
> maybe before dinner Friday and Saturday...the
> pressures of their life keep them on track
> otherwise, catching a buzz refreshes them and
> recharges them. They have good jobs, good
> families, etc. They don't become instant sh**heads
> because they get high.
>
> And, on the other hand, aren't there plenty of
> sh**heads...who don't do drugs? They have bad
> jobs, or no jobs, are reckless, rude, unhealthy
> and otherwise drains on society? They do stupid
> redneck sh** like shoot at propane tanks. They are
> sh**heads, always have been, always will be...what
> are you gonna do-outlaw being a sh**head?
>
> And sure, there are sh**heads who use drugs...so
> what. There are sh**heads who drive, own guns,
> take space in schools, are unhealthy, etc.
>
> Otherwise, what is the idea? Is no drug use gonna
> make everyone "successful"? Of course, we know
> that can't be...if everyone is rich, no one is
> rich, right?
>
> So, why does our government spend so much dang
> money on this effort? It isn't working, and not
> evrybody who uses drugs is a f***up, and not every
> f***up uses drugs.
>
> Let the free market sort it out, penalize severely
> dangerous behaviour, but otherwise, let people do
> what they want.
>
> Tax it. So, if someone makes money, and are
> otherwise productive, you can afford it...again,
> free market.
>
> It should be known that I do not partake.
>
> Is there a great deal of hypocrisy from folks
> talking about how "free" we are, who support
> "small government" yet they support the feds
> spending $65B per year, or whatever it is, on
> keeping people from smoking or eating stuff that
> makes their brains pleasantly fuzzy for a few
> hours?


You're an idiot. The "free market" isn't going to solve shit. It's going to be regulated because idiots can't be trusted. Stop buying into that retarded libertaraian crap and grow the hell up.

^^^^^^^^
I thought goobers like the clown above were all for the free market. Morons like him are why gooberism is fading away in this country. Normal sane adults recognize pot is less dangerous than booze and can see the so-called war on drugs is an epic fail.

goober slayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^^^^^^
> I thought goobers like the clown above were all
> for the free market. Morons like him are why
> gooberism is fading away in this country. Normal
> sane adults recognize pot is less dangerous than
> booze and can see the so-called war on drugs is an
> epic fail.

Finally the asshole goober guy gets something right.

Potheads are too mad and sensitive to realize some of us are against legalization despite what it presented. To them that means you're "dumb". These are the type of people who got a trophy in soccer for participation.

Libertarianism is stupid and so are 99% of the people who support it. In fact, there are very few Libertarians because when you actually look at some of the shit they support, you realize it's batshit crazy and isn't feasible in practice.

Dunno about you guys, but I don't want pot-heads running around my state. If ya'll wanna smoke, smoke somewhere else please.

P.S. I'm also against smoking if you're wondering).

Jenny1234 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dunno about you guys, but I don't want pot-heads
> running around my state. If ya'll wanna smoke,
> smoke somewhere else please.
>
> P.S. I'm also against smoking if you're
> wondering).

I'd rather deal with ten potheads than one drunk. At music venues people need to smoke more and drink less. Potheads are already running around, by the way. More potheads, less drunks.

alchohol, pot and cigs need to be banned.

They both shoudl be banned Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> alchohol, pot and cigs need to be banned.

Trans fats, obesity, pharmaceuticals, guns, speeds over 40 mph.

More Deadly Things To Ban Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They both shoudl be banned Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > alchohol, pot and cigs need to be banned.
>
> Trans fats, obesity, pharmaceuticals, guns, speeds
> over 40 mph.


We know present the useless logical fallacy that all pot supports present when backed into a corner.

Kalingrad Oblast resident Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libertarianism is stupid and so are 99% of the
> people who support it. In fact, there are very few
> Libertarians because when you actually look at
> some of the shit they support, you realize it's
> batshit crazy and isn't feasible in practice.


I find it funny they actually support government taxing and regulating weed. Goes against their supposed convictions.

Logical Fallacy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We know present the useless logical fallacy that
> all pot supports present when backed into a
> corner.

Backed into a corner? Are we reading the same thing? Please explain.

More Deadly Things To Ban Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Logical Fallacy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We know present the useless logical fallacy
> that
> > all pot supports present when backed into a
> > corner.
>
> Backed into a corner? Are we reading the same
> thing? Please explain.


I'm just calling it as I see it. In every debate I've gotten into with a pot supporter it always devolves into that. "Should we ban X because it's bad" and more times than not, the guy arguing in favor of legalization takes that route.

Hey you, stop having more fun than me! Be a douche like me and spread the gospel of DARE.

goober sheep Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey you, stop having more fun than me! Be a douche
> like me and spread the gospel of DARE.


Because we should tell our kids to get drunk and snort cocaine. Yeah, that's a good idea.

Logical Fallacy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm just calling it as I see it. In every debate
> I've gotten into with a pot supporter it always
> devolves into that. "Should we ban X because it's
> bad" and more times than not, the guy arguing in
> favor of legalization takes that route.

Ah, I see. Someone presents an argument about outdated and seemingly abitrary substance bans that really don't do the general public any good; but since it doesn't agree with your viewpoint, it's invalid and not worthy of a real reaponse. That's a good way to "get in to it".

Goober Sheep Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> goober sheep Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey you, stop having more fun than me! Be a
> douche
> > like me and spread the gospel of DARE.
>
>
> Because we should tell our kids to get drunk and
> snort cocaine. Yeah, that's a good idea.

What should we tell the adults?

Because, of course, they shouldn't be allowed to think for themselves, and further, we need to make many activities illegal for them.

It keeps us employed...

Dumbass Libertarian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> better forum Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Does anyone have a hard time reconciling our
> > "free" society with drug enforcement...from a
> big
> > picture view?
> >
> > That is, in a "free society" and free market,
> > shouldn't a free man should be able to ingest
> just
> > about anything he wants...and, the "penalty"
> for
> > any substandard performance that might come
> from
> > that is whatever penalty a free market might
> > deliver...less money, sh** job, etc...?
> >
> > If you take too much and die, well, that sucks.
> > But what happens if you shoot yourself in the
> > head...drive too fast and crash...or otherwise
> do
> > something to excess and die...too bad, right?
> That
> > doesn't mean the gov takes those activities
> from
> > everyone else, does it?
> >
> > Sure, they regulate those activities...and tax
> > 'em.
> >
> > If you can ingest drugs in your home, and still
> > make $$$, and have a good life, etc, well, good
> > for you?
> >
> > There are quite a few people that fit into the
> > latter...they like to catch a buzz playing
> golf,
> > maybe before dinner Friday and Saturday...the
> > pressures of their life keep them on track
> > otherwise, catching a buzz refreshes them and
> > recharges them. They have good jobs, good
> > families, etc. They don't become instant
> sh**heads
> > because they get high.
> >
> > And, on the other hand, aren't there plenty of
> > sh**heads...who don't do drugs? They have bad
> > jobs, or no jobs, are reckless, rude, unhealthy
> > and otherwise drains on society? They do stupid
> > redneck sh** like shoot at propane tanks. They
> are
> > sh**heads, always have been, always will
> be...what
> > are you gonna do-outlaw being a sh**head?
> >
> > And sure, there are sh**heads who use
> drugs...so
> > what. There are sh**heads who drive, own guns,
> > take space in schools, are unhealthy, etc.
> >
> > Otherwise, what is the idea? Is no drug use
> gonna
> > make everyone "successful"? Of course, we know
> > that can't be...if everyone is rich, no one is
> > rich, right?
> >
> > So, why does our government spend so much dang
> > money on this effort? It isn't working, and not
> > evrybody who uses drugs is a f***up, and not
> every
> > f***up uses drugs.
> >
> > Let the free market sort it out, penalize
> severely
> > dangerous behaviour, but otherwise, let people
> do
> > what they want.
> >
> > Tax it. So, if someone makes money, and are
> > otherwise productive, you can afford
> it...again,
> > free market.
> >
> > It should be known that I do not partake.
> >
> > Is there a great deal of hypocrisy from folks
> > talking about how "free" we are, who support
> > "small government" yet they support the feds
> > spending $65B per year, or whatever it is, on
> > keeping people from smoking or eating stuff
> that
> > makes their brains pleasantly fuzzy for a few
> > hours?
>
>
> You're an idiot. The "free market" isn't going to
> solve shit. It's going to be regulated because
> idiots can't be trusted. Stop buying into that
> retarded libertaraian crap and grow the hell up.


First step when you can't ardue logically is to attack the other side.

You know, things like "You're an idiot", and "retarded crap" amd "grow the hell up".

Good stuff.

More Deadly Things To Ban Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Logical Fallacy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm just calling it as I see it. In every
> debate
> > I've gotten into with a pot supporter it always
> > devolves into that. "Should we ban X because
> it's
> > bad" and more times than not, the guy arguing
> in
> > favor of legalization takes that route.
>
> Ah, I see. Someone presents an argument about
> outdated and seemingly abitrary substance bans
> that really don't do the general public any good;
> but since it doesn't agree with your viewpoint,
> it's invalid and not worthy of a real reaponse.
> That's a good way to "get in to it".

Just because you think banning illegal substances are bad doesn't mean it's right. Those are what normal folks call OPINIONS.

angry feller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Goober Sheep Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > goober sheep Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hey you, stop having more fun than me! Be a
> > douche
> > > like me and spread the gospel of DARE.
> >
> >
> > Because we should tell our kids to get drunk
> and
> > snort cocaine. Yeah, that's a good idea.
>
> What should we tell the adults?
>
> Because, of course, they shouldn't be allowed to
> think for themselves, and further, we need to make
> many activities illegal for them.
>
> It keeps us employed...


Were talking about DARE, so try to keep up. I hear pot dulls the brain so I'll try to be mindful the more we converse. But at any rate, when so embody does something that affects me, I have a right to be pissed and I don't want to smell pot smoke in my face or have to deal with them operating machinery.

See, it's not just about YOU, it's about everybody.

angry lil girl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dumbass Libertarian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > better forum Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Does anyone have a hard time reconciling our
> > > "free" society with drug enforcement...from a
> > big
> > > picture view?
> > >
> > > That is, in a "free society" and free market,
> > > shouldn't a free man should be able to ingest
> > just
> > > about anything he wants...and, the "penalty"
> > for
> > > any substandard performance that might come
> > from
> > > that is whatever penalty a free market might
> > > deliver...less money, sh** job, etc...?
> > >
> > > If you take too much and die, well, that
> sucks.
> > > But what happens if you shoot yourself in the
> > > head...drive too fast and crash...or
> otherwise
> > do
> > > something to excess and die...too bad, right?
> > That
> > > doesn't mean the gov takes those activities
> > from
> > > everyone else, does it?
> > >
> > > Sure, they regulate those activities...and
> tax
> > > 'em.
> > >
> > > If you can ingest drugs in your home, and
> still
> > > make $$$, and have a good life, etc, well,
> good
> > > for you?
> > >
> > > There are quite a few people that fit into
> the
> > > latter...they like to catch a buzz playing
> > golf,
> > > maybe before dinner Friday and Saturday...the
> > > pressures of their life keep them on track
> > > otherwise, catching a buzz refreshes them and
> > > recharges them. They have good jobs, good
> > > families, etc. They don't become instant
> > sh**heads
> > > because they get high.
> > >
> > > And, on the other hand, aren't there plenty
> of
> > > sh**heads...who don't do drugs? They have bad
> > > jobs, or no jobs, are reckless, rude,
> unhealthy
> > > and otherwise drains on society? They do
> stupid
> > > redneck sh** like shoot at propane tanks.
> They
> > are
> > > sh**heads, always have been, always will
> > be...what
> > > are you gonna do-outlaw being a sh**head?
> > >
> > > And sure, there are sh**heads who use
> > drugs...so
> > > what. There are sh**heads who drive, own
> guns,
> > > take space in schools, are unhealthy, etc.
> > >
> > > Otherwise, what is the idea? Is no drug use
> > gonna
> > > make everyone "successful"? Of course, we
> know
> > > that can't be...if everyone is rich, no one
> is
> > > rich, right?
> > >
> > > So, why does our government spend so much
> dang
> > > money on this effort? It isn't working, and
> not
> > > evrybody who uses drugs is a f***up, and not
> > every
> > > f***up uses drugs.
> > >
> > > Let the free market sort it out, penalize
> > severely
> > > dangerous behaviour, but otherwise, let
> people
> > do
> > > what they want.
> > >
> > > Tax it. So, if someone makes money, and are
> > > otherwise productive, you can afford
> > it...again,
> > > free market.
> > >
> > > It should be known that I do not partake.
> > >
> > > Is there a great deal of hypocrisy from folks
> > > talking about how "free" we are, who support
> > > "small government" yet they support the feds
> > > spending $65B per year, or whatever it is, on
> > > keeping people from smoking or eating stuff
> > that
> > > makes their brains pleasantly fuzzy for a few
> > > hours?
> >
> >
> > You're an idiot. The "free market" isn't going
> to
> > solve shit. It's going to be regulated because
> > idiots can't be trusted. Stop buying into that
> > retarded libertaraian crap and grow the hell
> up.
>
>
> First step when you can't ardue logically is to
> attack the other side.
>
> You know, things like "You're an idiot", and
> "retarded crap" amd "grow the hell up".
>
> Good stuff.

Truth hurts. Now either refute the assertion or STFU.

"Just because you think banning illegal substances are bad doesn't mean it's right"...makes very little sense.

If the poster thought "banning substances ARE (lol) bad", they certainly wouldn't think that "it's right", now, would they?

And that is what a "normal folk" would call an "opinion"?

Or, gibberish?

was that it was merely an opinion and most people would recognize it was an opinion. It's not a scientific fact. Backed by empirical studies that banning pot is bad. Anybody can skew stats so they can be viewed favorably and a lot of people engage in confirmation bias because they don't like the other side and want their vies validated.

Pot heads and their supporters are no different and everything they say should be viewed as opinion and not FACT.

Wahhh IM mad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> angry lil girl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Dumbass Libertarian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > better forum Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Does anyone have a hard time reconciling
> our
> > > > "free" society with drug enforcement...from
> a
> > > big
> > > > picture view?
> > > >
> > > > That is, in a "free society" and free
> market,
> > > > shouldn't a free man should be able to
> ingest
> > > just
> > > > about anything he wants...and, the
> "penalty"
> > > for
> > > > any substandard performance that might come
> > > from
> > > > that is whatever penalty a free market
> might
> > > > deliver...less money, sh** job, etc...?
> > > >
> > > > If you take too much and die, well, that
> > sucks.
> > > > But what happens if you shoot yourself in
> the
> > > > head...drive too fast and crash...or
> > otherwise
> > > do
> > > > something to excess and die...too bad,
> right?
> > > That
> > > > doesn't mean the gov takes those activities
> > > from
> > > > everyone else, does it?
> > > >
> > > > Sure, they regulate those activities...and
> > tax
> > > > 'em.
> > > >
> > > > If you can ingest drugs in your home, and
> > still
> > > > make $$$, and have a good life, etc, well,
> > good
> > > > for you?
> > > >
> > > > There are quite a few people that fit into
> > the
> > > > latter...they like to catch a buzz playing
> > > golf,
> > > > maybe before dinner Friday and
> Saturday...the
> > > > pressures of their life keep them on track
> > > > otherwise, catching a buzz refreshes them
> and
> > > > recharges them. They have good jobs, good
> > > > families, etc. They don't become instant
> > > sh**heads
> > > > because they get high.
> > > >
> > > > And, on the other hand, aren't there plenty
> > of
> > > > sh**heads...who don't do drugs? They have
> bad
> > > > jobs, or no jobs, are reckless, rude,
> > unhealthy
> > > > and otherwise drains on society? They do
> > stupid
> > > > redneck sh** like shoot at propane tanks.
> > They
> > > are
> > > > sh**heads, always have been, always will
> > > be...what
> > > > are you gonna do-outlaw being a sh**head?
> > > >
> > > > And sure, there are sh**heads who use
> > > drugs...so
> > > > what. There are sh**heads who drive, own
> > guns,
> > > > take space in schools, are unhealthy, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise, what is the idea? Is no drug use
> > > gonna
> > > > make everyone "successful"? Of course, we
> > know
> > > > that can't be...if everyone is rich, no one
> > is
> > > > rich, right?
> > > >
> > > > So, why does our government spend so much
> > dang
> > > > money on this effort? It isn't working, and
> > not
> > > > evrybody who uses drugs is a f***up, and
> not
> > > every
> > > > f***up uses drugs.
> > > >
> > > > Let the free market sort it out, penalize
> > > severely
> > > > dangerous behaviour, but otherwise, let
> > people
> > > do
> > > > what they want.
> > > >
> > > > Tax it. So, if someone makes money, and are
> > > > otherwise productive, you can afford
> > > it...again,
> > > > free market.
> > > >
> > > > It should be known that I do not partake.
> > > >
> > > > Is there a great deal of hypocrisy from
> folks
> > > > talking about how "free" we are, who
> support
> > > > "small government" yet they support the
> feds
> > > > spending $65B per year, or whatever it is,
> on
> > > > keeping people from smoking or eating stuff
> > > that
> > > > makes their brains pleasantly fuzzy for a
> few
> > > > hours?
> > >
> > >
> > > You're an idiot. The "free market" isn't
> going
> > to
> > > solve shit. It's going to be regulated
> because
> > > idiots can't be trusted. Stop buying into
> that
> > > retarded libertaraian crap and grow the hell
> > up.
> >
> >
> > First step when you can't ardue logically is to
> > attack the other side.
> >
> > You know, things like "You're an idiot", and
> > "retarded crap" amd "grow the hell up".
> >
> > Good stuff.
>
> Truth hurts. Now either refute the assertion or
> STFU.


The truth is, I'm an idiot? Wow. You don't even know me.

And, it is retarded crap? You want me to refute that brilliant assertion?

OK...here we go...no it is NOT retarded crap!!!

And, I'll try and refute the "assertion" that I should "grow up" the best way I can...uh, well, uh gee, I'm 55 years old.

ANy other brilliant, well though "assertions" you want me to "refute"?

Holy sh**.

Ease up with the name calling.

lil feller c'mon now settle down Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wahhh IM mad Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > angry lil girl Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Dumbass Libertarian Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > better forum Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Does anyone have a hard time reconciling
> > our
> > > > > "free" society with drug
> enforcement...from
> > a
> > > > big
> > > > > picture view?
> > > > >
> > > > > That is, in a "free society" and free
> > market,
> > > > > shouldn't a free man should be able to
> > ingest
> > > > just
> > > > > about anything he wants...and, the
> > "penalty"
> > > > for
> > > > > any substandard performance that might
> come
> > > > from
> > > > > that is whatever penalty a free market
> > might
> > > > > deliver...less money, sh** job, etc...?
> > > > >
> > > > > If you take too much and die, well, that
> > > sucks.
> > > > > But what happens if you shoot yourself in
> > the
> > > > > head...drive too fast and crash...or
> > > otherwise
> > > > do
> > > > > something to excess and die...too bad,
> > right?
> > > > That
> > > > > doesn't mean the gov takes those
> activities
> > > > from
> > > > > everyone else, does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, they regulate those
> activities...and
> > > tax
> > > > > 'em.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can ingest drugs in your home, and
> > > still
> > > > > make $$$, and have a good life, etc,
> well,
> > > good
> > > > > for you?
> > > > >
> > > > > There are quite a few people that fit
> into
> > > the
> > > > > latter...they like to catch a buzz
> playing
> > > > golf,
> > > > > maybe before dinner Friday and
> > Saturday...the
> > > > > pressures of their life keep them on
> track
> > > > > otherwise, catching a buzz refreshes them
> > and
> > > > > recharges them. They have good jobs, good
> > > > > families, etc. They don't become instant
> > > > sh**heads
> > > > > because they get high.
> > > > >
> > > > > And, on the other hand, aren't there
> plenty
> > > of
> > > > > sh**heads...who don't do drugs? They have
> > bad
> > > > > jobs, or no jobs, are reckless, rude,
> > > unhealthy
> > > > > and otherwise drains on society? They do
> > > stupid
> > > > > redneck sh** like shoot at propane tanks.
> > > They
> > > > are
> > > > > sh**heads, always have been, always will
> > > > be...what
> > > > > are you gonna do-outlaw being a sh**head?
> > > > >
> > > > > And sure, there are sh**heads who use
> > > > drugs...so
> > > > > what. There are sh**heads who drive, own
> > > guns,
> > > > > take space in schools, are unhealthy,
> etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Otherwise, what is the idea? Is no drug
> use
> > > > gonna
> > > > > make everyone "successful"? Of course, we
> > > know
> > > > > that can't be...if everyone is rich, no
> one
> > > is
> > > > > rich, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > So, why does our government spend so much
> > > dang
> > > > > money on this effort? It isn't working,
> and
> > > not
> > > > > evrybody who uses drugs is a f***up, and
> > not
> > > > every
> > > > > f***up uses drugs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let the free market sort it out, penalize
> > > > severely
> > > > > dangerous behaviour, but otherwise, let
> > > people
> > > > do
> > > > > what they want.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tax it. So, if someone makes money, and
> are
> > > > > otherwise productive, you can afford
> > > > it...again,
> > > > > free market.
> > > > >
> > > > > It should be known that I do not partake.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there a great deal of hypocrisy from
> > folks
> > > > > talking about how "free" we are, who
> > support
> > > > > "small government" yet they support the
> > feds
> > > > > spending $65B per year, or whatever it
> is,
> > on
> > > > > keeping people from smoking or eating
> stuff
> > > > that
> > > > > makes their brains pleasantly fuzzy for a
> > few
> > > > > hours?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You're an idiot. The "free market" isn't
> > going
> > > to
> > > > solve shit. It's going to be regulated
> > because
> > > > idiots can't be trusted. Stop buying into
> > that
> > > > retarded libertaraian crap and grow the
> hell
> > > up.
> > >
> > >
> > > First step when you can't ardue logically is
> to
> > > attack the other side.
> > >
> > > You know, things like "You're an idiot", and
> > > "retarded crap" amd "grow the hell up".
> > >
> > > Good stuff.
> >
> > Truth hurts. Now either refute the assertion or
> > STFU.
>
>
> The truth is, I'm an idiot? Wow. You don't even
> know me.
>
> And, it is retarded crap? You want me to refute
> that brilliant assertion?
>
> OK...here we go...no it is NOT retarded crap!!!
>
> And, I'll try and refute the "assertion" that I
> should "grow up" the best way I can...uh, well, uh
> gee, I'm 55 years old.
>
> ANy other brilliant, well though "assertions" you
> want me to "refute"?
>
> Holy sh**.
>
> Ease up with the name calling.

You aren't a good influence for children at all.

That was your point?

Yeah, I guess I did miss that.

oh, man, now I see it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That was your point?
>
> Yeah, I guess I did miss that.


I'm not going to change my opinion on weed, so stop trying to convert me.

You got yourself a deal

But...but...but...what about the children?

Ahh yes, I love that one.

but...but...but Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But...but...but...what about the children?
>
> Ahh yes, I love that one.

So drop the holier than thou act.

LoL@U Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's an idea...follow the damn rules and you
> won't get arrested. What a bunch of fucking
> retards. If you want to waste your life and smoke
> pot, move to MD or some other state.
>
> I bet none of you have steady, honest work at all.

Or don't follow the rules and work for the CIA, NSA, DOD breaking whatever laws you want.

Declaration of independence states
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

AND When those with "Marijuana Soaked Brains" get caught may the County Attorney hammer-um in court and slammer-um to the state pen where they can't ruin other young lives.

It's Illegal Keep It That Way Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AND When those with "Marijuana Soaked Brains" get
> caught may the County Attorney hammer-um in court
> and slammer-um to the state pen where they can't
> ruin other young lives.

"marijuana soaked brains"? Locking people up for smoking a plant?
Jesus Christ, people like you actually exist?

Hopefully you'll get ass cancer soon and clean out the gene pool.

laws are for the dumb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LoL@U Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Here's an idea...follow the damn rules and you
> > won't get arrested. What a bunch of fucking
> > retards. If you want to waste your life and
> smoke
> > pot, move to MD or some other state.
> >
> > I bet none of you have steady, honest work at
> all.

You'd be shocked at how many people with steady, honest work are smoking marijuana on a regular basis. Sure I don't know your story, but there are "fucking retards wasting their lives smoking pot" that are doing much better than you are.

And, there are plenty of people who don't smoke and are complete wastoids.

I was watching that prison show last night, and the warden was saying it was drugs that was the common demoninator to most prisoners...which may in fact be true.

However, would those people would otherwise be sterling citizens without drugs? Or, are they for the most part just stone cold f-ups, and drug use is just one more thing that they can't handle...along with jobs, sexual responsibility, anger management, etc..?

If it weren't for drugs, would the majority still be bottom of the barrel, liars, cheats, stealing, putting tats on their necks and scalps, beating people up, making shanks, etc.?

There will be stratification in a free market, which includes a bottom of the barrel.

Just the way it is.

New NOVA Pot Billboard!

http://www.gofundme.com/hdrabo

US has 5% of the world's population but 25% of the world's prison population. We have 1/20th of the people alive but we have 1/4 of the prisoners worldwide. #freedomisforcommunists #policestateforprofit #warondrugsisforprofit

>marijuana soaked brains"? Locking people up for smoking a plant


Why so mad bro. they have been doing it for decades.

Thought Obama was going to help you out with this, sorry suckers jokes on you .