Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Searching for Harper | Main | Al & Mike Show - Episode 56 - Two to go »

Friday, February 27, 2009

The Big Lie

In honour of the long-overdue announcement that federal raids on medical marijuana America have ended, I thought I would post an excerpt on the origins of marijuana prohibition from Peter McWilliams' outstanding book, Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do, the text of which is available online through that link (but it's well worth purchasing).

The chapter of the book from which I'm drawing the following excerpt lays out the steps through which the Marijuana Tax Act (which banned cannabis in the United States) went before it was passed under the supervision of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Harry Anslinger, and the false premises and outright bullying to which the FBN had to resort to get the act passed and force medical professionals to get on board.

... how many doctors were heard in the congressional hearings in 1937? Precisely one. He represented the American Medical Association. The AMA opposed the bill. At least twenty-eight medicinal products containing marijuana were on the market in 1937, the doctor pointed out; drugs containing marijuana were manufactured and distributed by the leading pharmaceutical firms; and marijuana was recognized as a medicine in good standing by the AMA. [...]

[...] Like the Harrison Narcotics Act before it, the Marijuana Tax Act claimed—even in the title of the bill—only to tax marijuana. It was yet another deception perpetrated on Congress and the American people: the intent of the bill was never to tax, but to prohibit. Beyond mere deception, however, the Big Lie to Congress was yet to come.

In testifying before the congressional committee, the doctor sent by the AMA said the AMA had only realized "two days before" the hearings that the "killer weed from Mexico" was indeed cannabis, the benign drug used and prescribed by the medical profession for more than a hundred years. Said Dr. Woodward,

We cannot understand, yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for two years without any intimation, even to the [medical] profession, that it was being prepared.

Anslinger and the committee chairman, Robert L. Doughton, DuPont Dynasties, Robert Doughton was a key DuPont supporter in Congress denounced and curtly excused Dr. Woodward. When the marijuana tax bill came before Congress, one pertinent question was asked from the floor: "Did anyone consult with the AMA and get their opinion?" Representative Vinson answered for the committee, "Yes, we have . . . and they are in complete agreement."

The Big Lie. The bill passed, and became law in September 1937.

Anslinger was furious with the AMA for opposing him before the congressional committee. As the commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, he could prosecute any doctors who prescribed narcotics for "illegal purposes." Which purposes were "illegal" was pretty much Anslinger's call. From mid-1937 through 1939, more than 3,000 doctors were prosecuted. In 1939, the AMA made peace with Anslinger and came out in opposition to marijuana. From 1939 to 1949, only three doctors were prosecuted by the FBN for drug activity of any kind.

McWilliams, for those who don't know, passed away in 2000. He had AIDS and cancer and had been successfully using marijuana (legal under California law) to control his nausea, but switched to Marinol after a federal investigation and a judge ordered him to do so. Marinol was only effective about a third of the time for McWilliams and one day shortly after he switched medications he began vomiting and choked to death.

For all the economic damage he's likely to do, Obama's policy on letting the states legislate on medical marijuana would have saved Peter McWilliams' life, and will save lives that would have been lost. If I had a hat, I'd tip it to Mr. Obama today.

Posted by Janet Neilson on February 27, 2009 | Permalink

Comments

Chris,

1. Marijuana is not food. In fact, it is abrasive to the stomach and can cause ulcers. You can eat the seeds, of course, but you'd need a lot of plants to produce enough seeds for regular table fare.

2. And while we're playing substitution games, why don't we substitute "armed thug about to execute hostage" with "innocent 4-year-old child" as the person shot dead by a police officer and see if they also mean the same thing?

Moreover, even if we do play your "what if," then the sentence remains true: Those who patronize illegal markets are ultimately responsible for the illegal acts of the illegal merchants. It doesn't matter what the contraband itself is.

By the way, sounds like you hate Methodist ministers. Thought you pro-pot, down-to-earth types were supposed to be non-judgemental.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-01 5:27:24 PM


the" big lie " is pretty mush on the Stoners side of the quasion- they don;t do their homework, can barely articulate their points, and then drift off on tangents.

Pot induced Synapse misfires passed off as creative spunk, cognative failure explained away as open mindedness,, The only apologists for marijuana are the abusers of same..

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

yesterday, disgraced international publisher Lord Conrad Black wrote from a Florida jail an opinion piece about the war on drugs. He claimed this dreadful and unnecessary war as its being fought right now is non productive- not because of enforcement efforts- but because the stoner market demand has not been successfully eliminated, and that means the multi million man stoner wipehead demand, desire, need or addiction to pot and other controlled substances is the huge central ugly determining factor in the drug war.

Mr Black did not claim pot was safe or great or useful- he said drug use was the _problem_ on so many levels why there is a drug war eating at the entrails of the world, So snap out of it wipehead goofs-legalization of your favourite delusion enhancing chemicals is never gonna happen..

Is it any wonder then that pot was, is and will likely remain a controlled substance-- ? The Big Lie here wiphads, you are why there is a global drug war-

Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-01 6:10:39 PM


Shane, your distortions are boring. You seem obsessed with perpetuating a dim-witted sense of what a fallacy is and isn't. Explain why you want to have policy kept in place that you can't afford and can't enforce.
p.s. Shane if you send me $50,000 I will begin killing mosquitos as soon as I buy a very fast sports car to kill them with. Mosquitos are really dangerous, some are known killers, and since you have no concept of cost to benefit ratios you really should have no objection to my task force searching your home for killer mosquitos or your money. Sorry if this makes a mess of your life, but it is obviously for the greater good.

Posted by: Rubblebeam | 2009-03-01 6:57:28 PM


wow! Citizen Rubbebeam saving us from mosquitos...
for only $ 50,000, what a deal, thats only a fraction of what spraying costs..and does it while bored, amazing.. vendor pays own speeding tickets, insurance and gas.


We knew this discussion is supposed to be _about drugs-
we didn't know it was a forum for people _on drugs

Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-01 7:27:15 PM


Ouch, I need to go sit in the corner and cry, cause the big mean man made my feelings go ouchie!!! I never learned how to write in pawagwaphs before... Well, back to my nefarious cackling, I guess, to cavort with the undead and dance naked round the devil's cock, shrouded in the foul stench of the smoke that wreaths my poor broken mind....

Posted by: Yusef | 2009-03-01 7:58:00 PM


sure, go ahead Yusef
- the detox will do you good

Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-01 8:08:31 PM


That’s some rejoinder, Rubblebeam. You find my distortions “boring,” yet talk of killing mosquitoes with a $50K sports car. As a matter of fact, mosquitoes do kill millions of people every year, as they are the primary vector for malaria. However, nets and DEET are cheaper. Draining standing water helps, too. In any case, you didn’t drop by to debate; you just wanted to administer an e-wedgie. Feeling liberated? Good. Now piss off.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-01 10:22:46 PM


Long as you do it where I can't see you, Yusef. If I do, I'm phoning the fuzz.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-01 10:23:51 PM


Shane Mathews,

Apparently you despise marijuana users for their hobby because you are under the impression all marijuana users are 'lazy' and leaches to society. Your presumption stems from Hollywood and media influences creating the cultural stereo-type and is entirely ignorance. I would assume the percentage of 'leaches' (wellfare, homeless, unemployed)that smoke marijuana is the same as any group of random people.

Every single marijuana smoker I know has and maintains a job. The majority of marijuana smokers I know are intellectual types, who are highly intelligent as well as productive, political, and spiritual people.

Some people smoke weed because it alters ones consciousness. This is an incredibly remarkable phenomena that compares only to dreams and religious experiences. Marijuana allows some of us to explore the mysteries of consciousness in a harmless pastime of philosophy and spirituality. This should not be viewed as offensive to anyone with good taste.

Posted by: NewDescartes | 2009-03-02 12:16:40 AM


Stop pretending life is some enormous struggle and cannabis users are the some massive burden society has to lug around. The real burden is corrupt humans holding offices of power. The struggle between individual freedom and majority-rules-government-structured-standard-of-living has begun. We don't get to choose who,when,or where we are born, so lets make it as comfortable as we can to everyone we can.

Posted by: NewDescartes | 2009-03-02 12:20:33 AM


NewDescartes,

1. What I resent is the marijuana smoker's willingness to fund organized crimed and the violence that now convulses our streets. Those who grow their own and neither buy from nor sell to the criminal element are excused from this definition, but they're a minority. Most pot smokers do not grow their own. The gangs would have no market for their wares otherwise.

2. Again, why is it that every time someone argues for the legalization of marijuana, they feel obliged to tell us about their personal experiences? Anecdotes are not evidence, because they are statistically insignificant. The definition you give sounds very much like college students or baby boomers (many of whom are stuck in their college years), demographics not known for self-denial or emotional maturity. They're also noted for hypocrisy. Most would likely make a noisy show of opposing blood for oil, but are perfectly okay with blood for pot, as their continued funding of street gangs demonstrates.

3. MOST people smoke weed because it alters consciousness. Whatever justification you offer for recreational use, is more than countered by the violence in the streets that comes from purchasing illegal product. Your reasoning shows more than a lack of taste; it betrays a particularly murderous and virulent strain of selfishness, a flippant assertion that the lives of our police and even of innocent bystanders amount to less in the cosmic scheme of things than your own metaphysical dabblings.

That is offensive. And that is why I despise marijuana users.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-02 12:41:09 AM


"Stop pretending life is some enormous struggle and cannabis users are the some massive burden society has to lug around."

Who's pretending? No need to.

"The real burden is corrupt humans holding offices of power."

Who are smoking more marijuana than ever before, being mostly baby boomers. It shows in their loopy court rulings and wacky policy, too. Some of their ideas defy all logic. Like the idea that making something harder to do increases the number of people doing it. Or that putting crooks behind bars increases crime.

"The struggle between individual freedom and majority-rules-government-structured-standard-of-living has begun."

Amen, I'm right again. I've been saying all along that pot smokers are rebel types; they keep denying it, but then insist on proving it.

"We don't get to choose who,when,or where we are born, so lets make it as comfortable as we can to everyone we can."

Apparently your definition of bringing comfort is funding activity that winds up with our kids dead in the streets? Don't kid yourself into believing that anyone on this board doesn't see right through you. You are interested in your own comfort; nobody else's.

Feeeeeelings; fuh-fuh-fuh-feeeeeeelinggs....

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-02 12:47:23 AM


Great! We agree that the presence of street gangs, violence, and organized crime is intolerable. That is why we should legalize it, tax, and sell it as another commodity/product on the shelves.
I think alcohol has contributed a considerable amount of revenue/jobs since the end it's prohibition, why wouldn't marijuana be the same?

Politicians and CEO's aren't corrupt because they smoked weed in the 70's. They are corrupt because of money.

I was under the assumption that political "whack jobs" and lunatic judges believed the same about marijuana as you do. I mean after all it's still legal, if a bunch of hippies were running the show pot would be legal today.

You must see street scum and identify these people with pot smokers. This is a wrong assumption. The majority of street scum will smoke anything they can get their hands on and it has nothing to do with weed. Crime is not caused by weed, although organized crime will use anything illegal to gain funding. If porn was illegal, they would sell it.

Posted by: NewDescartes | 2009-03-02 1:12:04 AM


You're damn right I care about my own comfort.

I'm surrounded by cockeyed individuals who will stop at nothing to spread an intolerant view of hatred and despair with no consideration for an individual's point of view. These people proclaim to use logic and science in order to further their agenda of sustainability, but fail to consider the possibilities that mind altering drugs promise to offer. Restricting human thought has never been a good idea, especially something so unique and special as this. Prohibition is the religious persecution of today.

Easily offended people offend me.

Posted by: NewDescartes | 2009-03-02 1:28:36 AM


NewDecartes,

1. Apparently you don’t find street gangs and violence that intolerable, because you still prefer it to giving up “exploring the mysteries of consciousness.” In other words, it’s all about you, which is no more than what I said. And Canada cannot legalize marijuana without walking away from several international treaties and conventions, nor can any other Western country. The idea that the “war on drugs” is a US-led effort is a myth. They’re the most forceful and most populous, but even Amsterdam is closing down its “coffee shops.”

2. What you think does not matter; get that into your head. It only matters what you can prove. And thus far, I haven’t seen a single fact in any of your posts. It’s all about how you feel. Prohibition in the US isn’t over, by the way, just federally mandated, nationwide prohibition. Each county sets its own rules. For instance, the county where Jack Daniels is made is totally dry.

3. Activists are corrupt as well, my friend, and they lie at least as much. They had destroyed whole industries and have their eye on several more, all so they can go to bed at night telling themselves what evolved creatures they are for standing up to such monstrous evil as provides men with jobs and families with livelihoods.

4. Even those hippies have to bow to popular opinion if they hope to see re-election; that’s a political reality. Judges are another story, but as local events prove, citizens and even the government are getting increasingly impatient with their hug-a-thug mentality.

5. I identify pot smokers with scum because pot smokers fund organized crime. You argue that prohibition is the problem, but it isn’t. The problem is a willing market for illegal product regardless of the cost to others. It matters not who ends up dead and bleeding in the gutter, so long as you can “explore the mysteries of consciousness.” You may think you’re an intellectual and highly evolved and sensitive being, but in truth you’re merely a besotted hedonist. Well, the world certainly needs more of those.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-02 6:35:33 AM


You're surrounded, eh, Decartes? A single candle in a sea of darkness. A delicate-petaled rose in a wasteland of industrial grunge. A beautiful angelfish in an ocean of gaunt, half-starved piranhas. (Oh, wait! I think I saw this movie!)

To judge from your posts, what you really are is the 21st-century equivalent of a deranged opium eater who finds the world a cold and unfriendly place and turns to drugs to distance himself from it. That's not seeking enlightenment; that's seeking oblivion.

How do you expect us to believe you have a better grasp on reality than we do, if you tuck tail and run from it on a regular basis? There is no other world, at least not while you're still alive. There's just this. Deal with it, let others deal with it, or stand aside.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-02 6:45:13 AM


the old Descartes was a crabby old goof ..
the new one is staying on course none of this forced will change the fact that most of the world does not welcome marihuana nor the flippant disregard for peace & order marihuana intoxication sustains-
and the world backs it up with well armed police drug squads.

Legalization of recreational cannabis in this decade, this lifetime in any part of this world we call home is becoming less likely as the weeks pass. Look at the news- where are the Wipeheads winning any ground ? even an inch? Zero..zero inches

the stoners are still at zero gain after 70+ years./ four generations of Prohibition. Prohibition is working. just like mosquito nets and DEET is working..

Sorry Mr. New Descartes- bold words are just that- words. modified wind, something like an educated fart

Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-02 8:26:51 AM


Anslinger's rhetoric was largely racial paranoia and I tend to think the anti-cannabis crowd are still wolves in klanman's clothing. But thats just my view of the drug warriors. And no, I'm not a stoner. Just observing.

Posted by: priapus | 2009-03-02 8:43:01 AM


RE: Priapus

"...the anti-cannabis crowd
are still wolves in klanman's clothing. .."

and drug war heros wear Orange Jumpsuits

great Drug War fashion news

Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-02 9:00:35 AM


I have a serious problem with people who continue to demonize Cannabis when the two most addictive and dangerous drugs out there are legal (Tobacco and Alcohol).

People drink to relax. People smoke pot to relax. What is the difference?

A lot. Mainly that marijuana cannot kill you, you cannot overdose on it, studies prove it does not cause lung cancer, etc., etc. Alcohol on the other hand... Wow, too much and you're dead.

Cops would much rather bust a bunch of people stoned on pot because they are easier to deal with than a rowdy bunch of drunks.

Reality is this is a purely political issue.

Posted by: Marcia | 2009-03-02 9:11:24 AM


Priapus, opinions are like rectums; everybody has one, and half the time they're full of crap. Debate is not about telling us what you think. Debate is about justifying why you think that way.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-02 9:41:52 AM


Marcia, you are yet another person who sees fit to regale us with her feelings. I've always known that potheads were pretty wrapped up in themselves, but I've never understood why. The cold, cruel reality is that this board is full of strangers who don't give a rat's behind what you have a problem with.

The tobacco/alcohol/pot triangle has been flogged to death. It doesn't hold water. The substances are not comparable. I've listed the differences at length but at the risk of sounding like a broken record I will review them here.

1. Tobacco. While tobacco may shorten your life, it is not a psychotropic substance; you can safely drive after smoking, or even during, though the advisability of doing anything while carrying fire in your fingers is questionable. And tobacco damages your lungs a lot less than pot, studies show. Current status: Legal. Criminal involvement: Moderate; some smuggling for tax evasion purposes. Violence of users: Negligible. Violence of illegal dealers: Negligible.

2. Alcohol. Abusing alcohol can significantly shorten your life, it's true. But moderate use will do no harm whatever. You have to be careful of what you do for a few hours, but the rate of sobering up is entirely predictable; there's even a chart. It's also been socially acceptable for thousands of years and has a long, rich tradition in European culture. Current status: Legal. Criminal involvement: Moderate; some smuggling for tax evasion purposes; the odd theft. Violence of users: Moderate to high; reduces inhibitions and makes one more willing to fight. Doesn’t make you do anything you’re not already capable of, though, and this happens only if you drink too much, and then only to some folks. Violence of illegal dealers: Slight.

3.Marijuana. Marijuana will not kill you directly, it’s true. But regular use will substantially shorten your life, for the same reasons that tobacco will. (Smoking is smoking.) Marijuana is also a mood and consciousness alterer with significant psychotropic effects that can be unpredictable. It is fat soluble so an additional jolt may be dumped into your system at any time, including while driving. It is well established as a gateway to harder drugs and has been linked with cognitive disruption, short-term memory loss, and erosion of higher brain functions. Current status:Illegal without prescription. Criminal involvement: Intense. Worldwide trafficking rings; cartels; drug lords; street gangs. Violence of illegal users: Negligible, owing to profound apathy.Violence of illegal dealers: Intense. Regular execution-style shootings, drive-by shootings, machine-gun spray attacks; biker wars; gang wars.

Pot smokers have been trying to force the public to view their habit through the lens of tobacco and alcohol for decades. It's their shortcut to legitimacy. But in case they haven't noticed, there's hardly a place in the world that buys their argument. Which means they have a serious problem with most of the world. Come to think of it, that pretty much describes the average stoner.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-02 10:04:14 AM


Marcia the not exactly original doth say:

"...I have a serious problem with people who continue to demonize Cannabis ..."

We 're sure you do; decent of you admit to it.

Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-02 10:32:46 AM


Shane,
"Criminal involvement: Intense. Worldwide trafficking rings; cartels; drug lords; street gangs. Violence of illegal users: Negligible, owing to profound apathy.Violence of illegal dealers: Intense. Regular execution-style shootings, drive-by shootings, machine-gun spray attacks; biker wars; gang wars."

Marijuana benefits these actions because it is ILLEGAL.

NO one would buy weed from a thug with a gun if they could go to Revco and pick it up. This is why your alcohol/tobacco argument is counterintuitive. You should read a book about critical thinking.

Marijuana is not unpredictable. Your ignorance is ghastly.

Hedonism is the way to go, but only because the world is filled with ignorant, crabby, prude, self-absorbed individuals like yourself who enjoy making the lives of those who are different than yourself uncomfortable.

I don't even smoke weed that often. I am just tired of pompous pricks like yourself who want it to remain illegal furthering the agenda of street crimes/organized crime.

You probably make a killing selling weed illegally.

Posted by: NewDescartes | 2009-03-02 3:29:50 PM


Shane, sorry took so long to get back to you but I can't write blogs while at work. You didn't address the point that the cost benefit ratio for marijuana prohibition is like using a sports car to kill mosquitos. Fancy equipment hasn't stopped something of little significance, even if as in the case with Mexican drug cartels, otherwise innocent people are dying because either Americans should give up their enjoyment of a plant or the government should give up their fancy helicopters that peer into our homes. So admit that you want police and politicians to dictate social norms. You are a facist, buzzing around looking for blood. I trust the American people will never again let a person like you decide what is medicinal based on faulty political thinking

Posted by: Rubblebeam | 2009-03-02 4:32:07 PM


"...NO one would buy weed from a thug with a gun if they could go to Revco and pick it up.."

Nobody would buy weed at Revco if they could buy it from any black market asshole, gun or not - as long as it was a dollar cheaper.. With two generations of wipeheads now supporting the drug black market, very little pot tax revenue would ever reach government if it was ever legalized.

No pirate grower would give it up in a legal pot world, they would just undercut legal pot by 99 cents and reel weiners like you in .. behold ! how little revenue reached the music publishing companies after Napster made stealing music so easy-- the sacred music bizz so many claimed to honour: well back stabbing public audio thugs fucked the golden goose the first moment they could...so the sacred n=-music providers suffered an immediate 50- 75% drop in revenues--Sony lost 90% --& don't give us any commie big corp crocodile tears- that was a technical gang rape and you know it,

Now imagine the feds selling pot- another sacred pop culture industry hedonists are trying to lure down a dark alley --

legal pot would instantly see a 99.9% loss of revenues because pot users are life long systematic cheaters - thats why when the police visit pot people on business they bring along dogs,, body armour and high powered guns... if weed was legal, it would be an economic disaster for any government that attempted to be dope providers to a bunch of civilian crooks- not only would the pot stores go bankrupt, but the police would still be running around 24-7 hunting down pot cheaters, pot thieves, * pot smugglers- many with guns, all with chips on their shoulders------ pretty much the same as it is right now--

"...Hedonism is the way to go, but only because the world is filled with ignorant, crabby, prude, self-absorbed individuals like yourself ( etc ) .."

to which we add-- we don't think you ever got over your mother insisting you to tidy up your room.. is that it Mr. Noobdescartes? hedonism is the art of being self absorbed, sort of like a kleenex blowing its own nose on itself

Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-02 4:46:21 PM


Your ego has made you delusional and incoherent.

Napster has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with marijuana. The comparison is irrelevant.

Your theory that gangster thugs would be better than legitimate companies, at growing, marketing, distributing, and selling weed, is rooted in your opinion of marijuana. This is simply an opinion that diametrically opposes empirical evidence and historical analogies.

Do you have any idea how remarkably cheap marijuana would be if it was legal? It is incredibly easy and fast to grow, and produces more fruit than your average tomato plant.

Get a grip and use your intelligence to do something productive instead of inflating your ego to uncontrollable levels.

Posted by: NewDescartes | 2009-03-02 5:24:07 PM


Fortunately Mr NewDescartes, such anime economics will never materialize in this present world. You seem somewhat stuck in an anarchist distopia of wall mart manga. , We imagine you are a lively 15 year old raised by stoner aunts who are what to do with a moody teenager who discovered their old Mother Jones magazines and some roaches. Someday you will grow up and leave the house get a bus pass and see the world beyond your zip code ..
-how did you find this website?

Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-02 6:35:59 PM


Imagine all you would like, but your psychoanalysis is pure fantasy. I was raised by a highly intelligent, god-fearing, wonderful mother and father who taught me to think for myself, something your parents neglected you. I have traveled all across the globe and seen punks like you at every corner that think everyone should bow to dogmatic and illogical views of authority.

Posted by: NewDescartes | 2009-03-02 7:14:46 PM


DesCartes wrote: "Marijuana benefits these actions because it is ILLEGAL."

1. NO, DesCartes; marijuana benefits these actions because marijuana smokers fund these actions. Marijuana has been illegal since 1937 but only since the 1960s has there been any substantive crime involving it. So the mere fact of its illegality is not the driving force behind the violence. The driving force is DEMAND. Demand provided by people like you.

2. But the fact is, they DO buy weed from a thug, rather than have no weed. The same could be said for those who bought alcohol from bootleggers during Prohibition. I drink, but if it were made illegal, I’d stop, rather than pay a criminal for it. This is in stark contrast to some, who are willing to fuel crime rather than give up a completely unnecessary distraction. What does that say about their character?

3. No, YOU should read a book on critical thinking. Your entire contribution to this blog has been a bunch of self-righteous emotional puke. If you knew anything about critical thinking you’d realize that buyers, not sellers, are the driving force behind any market. Emotion is NOT the equal of logic and never will be, no matter how much you toke up.

4. Very well, then, if marijuana is predictable, kindly tell me how many puffs would be required to produce a level of impairment equivalent to a blood-alcohol content of 0.08, the legal maximum for operating a motor vehicle. Or point me to a chart that can. If you cannot do this, consider your surrender on this point accepted.

5. Hedonism is the way, but only because of people like me, eh? I get this from a person who bankrolls drug-related violence rather than confront their own emotional adolescence. Is this the same person who a few short paragraphs ago scolded me for a lack of critical thinking?

6. Did I ask you what you were tired of? I can’t recall doing so. Because it’s not relevant, nor do I give two fucks. Nobody cares about your fucking feelings, your feelings make me sick, I spit on your puling and mewling feelings, your feelings are nothing but putrid, rancid, smelly piles of dogshit in the gutter. And as demonstrated above, it is the buyer, not the seller, nor the regulator, that drives the market. That’s you, sweetheart.

7. No, I don’t sell weed, but I understand that you can’t accept that not everyone is a morbidly selfish degenerate like you. This only furthers the case for your own emotional immaturity.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-02 9:27:18 PM


Okay, Rubblebeam, I'll address it now. First of all, that statement about sports cars and mosquitoes is only an analogy you made. I'm fairly certain you didn't do a lot of math in order to arrive at this comparison; it had all the earmarks of something uttered in a fit of pique, which is actually pretty much your style. The petulance, bitterness, and anti-establishment mindset are all plain in your posts. You fit the stoner mould so well it's an airtight seal.

Secondly, the money spent fighting drugs in general is not wasted, because the experience of the 19th and 20th centuries shows us the damage unrestricted psychotropics use can do to a society, China being the most harrowing example, but closer to home, just look at the Downtown Eastside. That's not caused by prohibition (a misnomer in any case, since drugs are restricted, not prohibited); it's caused by drug abuse.

The United States currently enjoys a crime rate lower than the average for the entire 20th century, and use of drugs by young people is on the way down. This coincides with locking up more career criminals and more drug pushers. You can argue that correlation doesn't equal causation till you're blue in the face, but the fact is you don't have an effective counterargument. Putting crooks in jail works. Period.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-02 9:40:45 PM


NewDartes wrote: "Your ego has made you delusional and incoherent."

1. This from the person who alternates between bemoaning a lack of critical thinking and lamenting the fact that some people actually have principles drove them to a life of drug-induced oblivion, as if that could possibly be all it took.

2. The comparison bears investigation, if only because it demonstrates how a thriving black market can destroy a legitimate one. All you need is buyers willing to break the law—buyers like yourself. As I said before, it is buyers, not sellers, who drive the market.

3. Gangsters do not have to worry about safety standards, quality control, minimum wage, paying tax, licensing fees, and a raft of other costs that legitimate growers would have to pay. They have far less overhead and can therefore charge less. Tobacco and alcohol smugglers take advantage of these facts to this day. Of course, it's less a factor with them, because cigarette smokers and drinkers, unlike marijuana smokers, are not used to breaking the law and have no illegal habits to unlearn.

4. No, and neither do you. In any case, it's a pipe dream, because Canada is a signatory to several international drug treaties, as are most Western countries, and it would take breaking those treaties in order to legally sell it. Legalizing it would also not reduce crime, because it would remain illegal in the US, and since much of the pot grown by the criminal element is destined for export, legalizing in Canada would have little effect on gang crime. You'd have to get at least the whole Western world to go along at once. Good luck with that.

5. I can't stand it. It's too easy. A self-professed, fa crissakes hedonist telling other people they need to get over themselves, that they have an overdeveloped ego? You'd kiss your own ass if you could bend over, DesCartes. That's how much you think of it.

You fund killings. You're proud of the fact that you fund killings; boast of it even. You fund killings in a twisted bid for independence and metaphysical enlightenment. You fund killings because other people are crabby, bossy, or disagree with you. You fund killings because the world is a cold, cruel place that makes you feel uncomfortable. Your “God-fearing” parents didn’t teach you to think for yourself, because thinking is not what you do. You don’t think; you feel, and consider that emotion is the equal, nay the superior, of rational thought. They also didn’t teach you discipline or respect for authority, that much is clear. So it’s questionable just what, if anything, they taught you. In any case, they can’t be too bright if they’re proud of an offspring that funds killings, and blames the world.

You fund killings. You willingly cavort with murdering scum, cutthroat knaves, bloodstained creatures, and common criminals, all to make a statement. You're nothing. Live with that. And frankly, I’ve little doubt that you can.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-02 10:01:14 PM


I am feeling generous tonight Mr NewDescartes.. so i will let you win.I am sure thats all you ever wanted, is for someone to fold at your activist brillance-- its just too bad the rest of society won't be implimenting any your directives, because all you suggest is basically surrender to sophomoric whim best left to fare forage itself on the internet

Be sure to tell your Mom you triumphed over yet another global punk, she should be proud of you.

We are curious, though how someone can teach you how to think for yourself..isn't that something you should be working on _by yourself ?

Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-02 11:07:47 PM


In following this thread I find it very interesting to see a couple of internet bullies posing as pseudo intellectuals especially when their reactionary dogma just will not hunt.

Because, first as a medical marijuana user I think I am more qualified to speak on the drug that works far better on my medical condition which is chronic pain and muscle spasms then they are.

I can also demonstrate where it takes three prescription drugs, all of which can produce fatal overdoses and two of which are physically addictive to treat the condition with less effectiveness.

But then that leads to one if the primary reasons marijuana remains illegal and also why no pharmaceutical companies are willing to do research on it. And that is simply because the pharmaceutical company and my doctor make too much money off those three prescriptions which I would have to have renewed monthly by prescription. Instead of using a non addictive non lethal drug I can grow in the privacy of my own home.

But that's only one reason marijuana became illegal and remains so. We can also supply 90% of our energy needs with biomass production of hemp and could have been doing that since 1905.

One acre of hemp is worth four acres of trees when it comes to paper manufacturing. And hemp is renewable annually when it takes an average of .
five years for trees to reach harvest maturity.

Hemp is a much stronger, durable and versatile fabric then cotton. And can be grown on far less then prime farm land with a minimum of water and fertilizer.

Hemp can also be used in making everything from boxes to houses and there are more then 100 naturally occurring chemicals in hemp which are now synthesized.

Hemp seeds can be used to produce both diesel fuel and food.

And marijuana intoxication does not produce the hangover that was referred to early as a debilitating effect of alcohol intoxication. And marijuana is not physically addicting like alcohol nor can result in a fatal overdose.

Legalizing marijuana would also make all of us safer and more prosperous.

I found it most amusing to follow the discussion of he crime and violence associated with marijuana, when its illegal status is exactly what causes that because prohibition has never worked and never will and simply creates a black market for criminals as well as corrupting our police and judicial system not to mention over crowding out prisons.

With what we could create in revenue through taxation and save in law enforcement it would amount to about $300 billion per year.

So quite obviously the benefits of legalizing marijuana/hemp far out weigh any reason to keep it illegal to everyone except the petroleum, textile, pharmaceutical, chemical and liquor industries which made it illegal in the first place and fight to keep it that way.

And finally I thought it was very ironic for some to claim that legalization was a delusion that was most probably a result of using the drug when anyone without self imposed blinders can clearly see the opposite is actually the case.

Several states have already legalized it for medicinal purposes. Individual jurisdictions like Denver Colorado have decriminalized it for personal use. California has a proposed right now for legalization and taxation. Public opinion polls now run as high as 70% in favor of decriminalization/legalization, and towns, cities, police departments and entire states are beginning to discuss the advantages of legalization and taxation to offset the losses from the economy and save police and incarceration costs.

So there is obviously every indication marijuana will become legal within the foreseeable future. And those who contend otherwise are the ones committing wishful or perhaps frightened thinking. would be more accurate.

PS
Since Harry Anslinger and his big lie came up, do you know what his last official act for the US government was. An act he has incidentally admitted to and is included in Peter McWillam's book.

His last official act was to assist Eugene McCarthy during his hearings where he would inject him with morphine right under the table.

This was actually an illegal act on Aslinger's part and when asked years later why he did that Anslinger said: Because I couldn't stand by and allow a fine American like Joe McCarthy possibly be subjected to blackmail because he had a minor drug problem.

Posted by: Uncle Homer | 2009-03-03 1:56:54 AM


Uncle Homer,

1. Sigh. I’m beginning to wonder if there is a single marijuana user who can defend their plant of choice without telling us about their specific situation. Such information is purely anecdotal. Some people swear marijuana helps them, true, but for centuries people have been saying the same thing about copper bracelets. That’s why the double-blind test was invented, in an attempt to reduce the enormous subjectivities involved. Marijuana, of course, is NOT being subjected to the same standards and procedures that any other drug is, and therein lies the problem.

2. Don’t kid yourself. Marijuana research is ongoing. It’s not some kind of evil conspiracy, either by your doctor today or DuPont seventy years ago. Both the AMA and the FDA oppose the use of marijuana as medicine because its efficacy is not scientifically proven and its long-term effects worrisome, and the defiance of a few maverick MDs does not change that.

3. As for hemp saving the world, don’t make me laugh. This threadbare horse has been shot and made glue of long ago. Hemp was replaced by nylon for rope because it doesn’t rot, and in the 1940s rot-resistant rope was in great demand by our forces in the perennially wet South Pacific. It makes a strong fabric, true, but a coarse one was well, with an abrasive “hand,” and is both difficult to work with and uncomfortable compared with cotton and linen. You can forget biomass, too. Blue-green algae, which are up to 50 percent oil by weight, would require 40,000 square kilometres of irrigated desert space to supply the energy needs of the United States alone; no terrestrial plant comes close to that kind of yield. About the only claim you’ve made that makes sense is the use of hemp for paper. And even if every single claim you made for hemp as an industrial material was true, it wouldn’t justify re-legalizing the smoking of it. Especially since the plants that produce the best fibres produce rotten smoking stock.

4. Like others, you keep repeating the same fable over and over again, that restriction of marijuana is to blame for the violence. Not one have you have been able to explain why it took thirty years for that law, passed in the 1930s, to have any kind of effect, nor have you even tried. Attempting to do so would torpedo the fragile argument that holds your case above water. It’s also in keeping with the tendency I’ve noted for pot smokers to shift the blame from their own law-breaking selves onto the lawman.

5. As for taking the pulse of the American people in general, I suggest you pick a less hedonistic state than California. In case you haven’t noticed, its loose moral standards and sky-high crime rates make it a laughing stock among the other 49. Even the U.N. is weighing in on these developments, and not on the side of the pro-legalization crowd. Other jurisdictions that have tried marijuana liberalization in the past are now tightening up again, notably Amsterdam and Alaska. Practically every Western jurisdiction that has tried it has found it to be more trouble than it’s worth. So don’t count your chickens, Homer.

6. Oh, and one last bit of advice: NEVER use the word “obviously” in an argument. It weakens not strengthens it. If your arguments were as convincing as you seem to think, they’d stand without that word; if not, throwing it in won’t make a silk purse out of a hemp sack. As I’ve told every other emoter on this board, it does not matter what you THINK. It only matters what you can PROVE. Saying so doesn’t make me a bully, nor does responding sternly and bitingly to petulant and snarky potshots. Why do pot smokers ALWAYS have to make the discussion personal? Do they really believe that anyone else gives a crap about their feelings?

P.S. I'm not impressed by your Harry Aslinger "exposé," appearing as it does in an activist book. Even if the account is true, it amounts to no more than you applaud "compassion clubs" for doing. By the way, since the morphine was administered "under the table," how does it then count as an "official act"? Truly pot smokers are driven by something other than their brains.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-03 6:50:19 AM


P.S. What kind of trees are you harvesting, that take only five years to reach harvestable maturity? A typical Douglas fir will be only five feet tall at that age.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-03 10:30:33 AM


Hi Uncle Homer- are you a legal US med pot user or a self diagnosed condition med pot user ? We suspect the latter..

** we don't accept your analysis that pot is forbidden because your doctor and Pharma Corp make too much money on other drugs - why wouldn't they want to make money off pot medicine if it actually worked better? How does a doctor or Pharma Corp recieve kickbacks from the black market that sells pot to wipheads for $10 a gram?

**biomass energy and the enormous infrastructure costs involvd cannot, and could not compete with the relatively simple act of pumping high octane liquid from a hole in tbe ground. We don't think biomass can deliver 8 million barrels a day.

** your statement that anyone who doesn't see drug prohibition dynamics like do is wearing blinders? Most of the human race is therefore wearing blinders, and you are in for a long frustrating life as they continue to look ahead, where we are actually going- and not at some stoner fantasy distraction on the side of the road

**In spite of your claims that sveral ststes have med MJ , and allow personal use- fine- thats either tiny potatoes or zero when the US feds have the final say in the matter. Industrial hemp is still at zero gains in the USA- so much for hemp bio mass

** on acre of hemp = 4 acres of trees: that is an agricultural speculation from 1914, almost 100 years ago -and you forgot to add the most important part " Over twenty years"- & you omitted to mention 19 years of tractors ploughing, sowing and harvesting a million acres of hemp that ripens all at once.while neglecting the grain harvest and not picking any fruit - and hemp has to be grown on on prime food land, irrigated and lavishly fertilized at more northern latitudes than what most of the USA can offer to achieve these yields -- trees grow on mountains. .food crops don't

** 70 % public opinion wants what exactly? legal pot? mno its in support of medical marijuana which is legal and has always been legal.. if you recall Uncle Homer, >more than 70% of US public opinion was against nuclear power in the 70s- 80s because Not exactly Nobel prize nuclear physisist Jane Fonda somehow convinced them/you with a paranoid fairytale that nuclear reactors will destroy all life and melt through the earth to China.. now, see how this loud proud swarm of activists have completely forgotten about that and passively watch the nuclear reactors bring them their electric power.. nothing changed, they just gave up to hiss at Bush Our view is that your 70% figure ( we doubt this and figure its more like 25% at best ) of reactionary civies will forget about pot in even shorter time..

** so let's get this one straight: stoner McWilliams claims in his book that Mr Anslinger personally injected Mr McCarthy with morphine while he sat at the anti communist hearings? Did he mention that Robert kennedy aka" Bobby" sibling to Big Brother JFK was Mr McCarthys personal assistant in the hunt against far left creeps- and was likely there in the same room with his legs dangling under the same table ? JFK got regular shots of various drugs while on duty as president of the USA- and smoked illegal cannabis -- boinked bi polar speed freak Marilyn Monroe

so what's your point except you wish 2009 reality lived up to your med pot droopy hippy dreams from 1969 ?



Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-03 11:47:42 AM


Shane,
What do you think would happen if marijuana was legalized, completely?

Would crime increase or decrease?

The United States has 25% of the entire worlds prisoner population. Would that number increase or decrease if marijuana was legalized?

What would gangs sell if marijuana was available at convenient stores? Who would they sell to if marijuana smokers could get better quality and cheaper weed from the store or simply grow it for themselves at home risk free?

Shane said,
"how many puffs would be required to produce a level of impairment equivalent to a blood-alcohol content of 0.08"

This just shows your ignorance about the affects of marijuana. I imagined you had at least smoked it a couple times before, but now I realize you don't know what your talking about. The affects of marijuana are completely different than the affects of alcohol. The two are incomparable. Its like saying how many Tylenol are equal to a pack of Rolaids.

Marijuana is predictable because there is a plateau of how 'high' one can get. Even at the peak of a plateau (ie really baked)one does not experience an impulse to do anything out of the ordinary. The only thing that changes is one's perception and appreciation of things in the world. This is not dangerous in any way nor does it drastically alter one's day to day activities. Read the Shafer commission's report.

Shane you are an alcoholic asshole and I am ending the conversation, although I will see your response. I enjoy debating and hearing other people's opinions. What I don't enjoy is having to scroll through paragraphs of insults to reach the meat of the argument. I desire to know why people think the way they do about a particular subject, to be certain I have not been mislead about something or educate someone that has been mislead. Closed minded assholes like you always love to make the debate personal and attack any and all opposing views.

You accomplish nothing.

Posted by: NewDescartes | 2009-03-03 6:20:39 PM


hey there NoobDescartes..


if you are ending the conversation, it is not likely anyone will respond to you. So have a nice day.

We guess its back to facebook for you.

Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-03 7:13:44 PM


NewDecartes wrote: "Shane, what do you think would happen if marijuana was legalized, completely? Would crime increase or decrease?"

1. Let me take that question to the next logical step: What if everything were legalized, completely? Would crime increase or decrease? It would decrease, naturally, because nothing would be a crime anymore. But would those acts currently considered to be crimes increase? The obvious answer is yes--for there would be no disincentive to commit them.

You didn't put much thought into that question, did you? Either that, or you were hoping I wouldn't. As they say, "Fat chance."

2. The United States also currently has a crime rate lower than the average for the entire 20th century. Are you going to argue with success? Or did you figure you could just quote a number, stand there all stone-faced with your hands on your hips, and call the case made, without offering any proof whatsoever?

3. What would gangs sell? Let's see, there's crack, heroin, ecstasy. Also massage parlours, numbers rackets, illegal gambling casinos. Don't forget bootleg music and movies, counterfeit goods, stolen cars, fencing burgled goods, smuggled weapons, and of course the old standbys loan sharking, racketeering, extortion, and contract murder. And all of that is just for starters. You are so naive.

4., 5. Translation: Marijuana's effects are not as predictable as you so insultingly stated. Both alcohol and marijuana impair reaction time and motor control. To a degree they also alter time perception. The degree to which alcohol does this can be predicted by a blood-alcohol chart used by every patrolman. You have not provided equivalent data for marijuana because no such data exists. The fact that the high maxes out at a certain level is not the same as having a reliable, objective way for a stoner to measure his degree of impairment based on amount smoked. Therefore it's Shane 1, DesCartes 0. Next time you decide to indulge in some loud conversation, you had best be prepared to back it up.

6. I said I drank; I did not say how much. (I actually have about one drink a week.) So on what grounds did you decide I was an alcoholic? Why, of course, on none at all. You just wanted to have a name to call me so you could retire with just a shred of dignity, at least in your own eyes. And at least my arguments contain some meat; yours consist almost entirely of self-justifying emotional blather and blaming everyone else for your actions. It was you who cast the first stone with your "cockeyed individuals" crack, and made your whole argument about your personal experiences; therefore you don't get to complain about others making the debate personal. You beat us all to it; now, reap what you have sown.

Now go, and continue to fund killings as you have always done. You're good at that, if at nothing else.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-03 7:58:55 PM


Shane

(I'll use your format).

1. You surely reveal your closed minded bias as well as your ignorance of this topic. That is easily demonstrated by asking you a simple question. Where are the double blind studies on the effectiveness of marijuana? Especially the US studies since you rejected out of hand and prejudice the information presented by another poster from outside the US who all you could do was bully and chastise.

The simple facts of the case are that marijuana research in the US has been deliberately curtailed and censored by any truly objective researchers ever since the La Guardia report came out. Dispite that however you speak from ignorance when you try and contend that no studies even in the US have not documented positive medical benefits. There have been many as well as several commission reports dating clear back to the 1960's that supported legalization.


2. Marijuana research is not on going on a large scale by objective researchers that don't have a vested interest in keeping it illegal or supporting the government's position.

The FDA is a perfect example of that. Its the government's position that marijuana should remain illegal and so the FDA which is administered by Government appointees supports that position. It will be interesting to see how that much changes with a new administration that does not have an anti marijuana bias.

The AMA on the other hand is greatly divided on the effectiveness and usefulness of Marijuana and it is far more then just a hand full of rouge doctors who are willing to prescribe it. Your fallacies here are painfully obvious since Marijuana was shown so effective in treating glaucoma that the federal government had to concede that and actually set up federal growing operations to meet that need. In addition even with its illegal status doctors have been recommending marijuana (since it most illegal to prescribe it) for chemo therapy patients for decades.
As to long term effects you're going to have to point to them with something other then your own biased preconceptions because the medical and research communities are having a very hard time finding any. That is especially troublesome at this point since marijuana came into wide use in the US more then 40 years ago which is plenty of time for chronic users to be showing up on hospital door steps with a number of diseases and they are not.
3. Obviously the only way you can try and dodge this point is by offering an erroneous one. While the Navy may use nylon ropes now (but I'm not sure that is really the case) back in 1940 the exact opposite case happened. Beginning in 1940 the US navy had to begin importing rope made from hemp for the first time in US history because marijuana/hemp had been outlawed in the US and it was the cotton ropes that were susceptible to sea water and kept breaking and allowing our ships to go adrift.
Hemp rope is still a major import and used in many places where nylon rope which tends to heat up, bind, and melt is not only unsuitable but dangerous.
You also contend that an unproven source of energy is preferable to one that has been proven for both ethanol and diesel since the internal combustion and diesel motors were invented. There are prototype facilities that have been working with hemp since the 1970's. And you also present an inescapable paradox when you claim that 40,000 square kilometers of "irrigated desert" can supply these energy needs where there is no irrigated desert and fresh water water, let alone irrigation water is rapidly becoming another one of our dwindling resources. So when we compare yield to required resources hemp still comes out ahead. It also comes out ahead because while algae can only produce one product hemp can produce multiple products.
And I'm glad you're willing to concede the point on hemp being much better when it comes to paper especially since if you reach in your pocket and take out your paper money you'll notice it is printed in imported hemp paper.
And all these industrial sources for hemp are in fact well documented and if you think they are not then I challenge you right here to prove they are not.

4. I find you academic dishonesty in these discussions to be a little trying but none the less I will address them.
You invent the argument that I am blaming gangs and drug deals on marijuana being illegal. It is prohibition that creates the atmosphere for them to thrive and this is a well established and proven fact. There was no real organized crime problem in the US until prohibition of alcohol which created the environment for criminals to join together in much greater numbers, compete with each other to the point of killing each other, as well as corrupting law enforcement, and they have been with ever since in one form or another.
You also overlook a very cold and dangerous reality in these gangs and violence today. And that is that much of the international drug trade (and incidentally the latest reduction in gang related violence) is being run by gangs that are already in prison.
Likewise, recognizing certain facts about human nature is in no way shifting the blame to anyone. Its simply recognizing something that cannot be changed as the experiment with prohibition of alcohol proved beyond doubt.

5. Once again you can only try to refute this point by ignoring what I actually said. While California is actively considering legalization, at the same time support for legalization/decriminalization is rising in national polls. And many states considering changes in their laws are far from hedonistic.
Also the examples you give are by in large false creations.
For example the UN report you cite is largely the creation of US arm twisting which insisted on severe penalties for marijuana use in their treaties and support for the UN/s other functions.
The tightening of controls you speak in Amsterdam are a measure to deal with increasing problems with organized crime in violence. They have taken no steps to prevent personal use and possession of marijuana.
And you'll have to tell me what the latest steps are in Alaska. The last I knew is they caved into federal pressure to pass new marijuana laws at the beginning of the drug war and have since relaxed them.
And the UK for just one example is another western country currently locked in a debate to relax marijuana laws which is primarily just opposed by law enforcement.
So while I won't count my chickens before they are hatched I still have far more chickens in this regard than you do.

6. And as long as people insist on overlooking the obvious in arguments I will continue to use it because it is pointing out the obvious. Also since some of your favorite tactics in these discussions is to resort to name calling, labeling, and demonetization I don't think I really need any debate tips from you.
Which would bring me to another one of your fallacies which is to say it does not matter what people think only what they can prove when all you offer is your own opinions with none or only limited slanted facts.
And stating your opinion certainly doesn't make you a bully but your tactics of trying to brow beat and insult people who disagree with you while simultaneously burying them in rhetoric does. As does ganging up on them like you and your partner do.
And finally you're such an OBVIOUS hypocrite when you try and claim that it is others that take the discussion to a personal level. That is actually your most consistent bullying tactic.

By the way you should refrain from using the word always or a generalizations such as pot smokers while debating. There are no absolutes and Always is easily defeated and generalizations will seldom if ever hold true.

P.S. I doubt that anything myself nor anyone else posts will impress you. I might be wrong but you seem far to egotistical and closed minded for that to happen.
The only reason I posted it was to point out the hypocrisy of our drug laws and the people who made them.
But to answer your question Aslinger was being paid by the US government to assist Joe McCarthy during his hearings and injecting him right through his pant leg with morphine he had illegally obtained and supplied McCarthy with for more then a decade was of great assistance to him.
And factually when all you can do is resort to derogatory generalizations about pot smokers you're already lost the debate.

Posted by: Uncle Homer | 2009-03-03 11:30:10 PM


Shane sorry I missed this one.

I'm talking about tree farms that are specifically designed to grow trees for paper mills and five years is the quickest turn around they can get between planting and harvesting.


Well hello Shane's partner; AKA 419

You suspect wrong. While I have been a marijuana smoker for 37 years medical marijuana was prescribed for by two reputable doctors in Colorado which both came to the same conclusion. It is you and your partners false claim that only a few quack doctors are willing to prescribe marijuana.

And the reason doctors to and pharmaceutical companies oppose marijuana is because you would not have to constantly pay your doctor to write you out a prescription for it and you don't need a pharmaceutical company to supply a drug you can grow yourself at home.
And there are no kickbacks involved its simply a matter of limiting choices and thereby limiting the competition.

And I can't believe how ignorant and misinformed you are when it comes to energy sources. Ethanol from hemp can be produced for $1.47 per gallon and there is no new enormous infrastructure needed. The infrastructure already exists except we are using a much needed food source for ethanol which is corn and is 10 times less productive than hemp.
Not to mention the fact that our nation is completely vunerable because we are dependent on foreign oil imports and world oil reserves are dwindling to the point that economic collapse and war is inevitable.

Anyone who can't see the dynamics of prohibition causing organized crime and violence is not only wearing blinders they are totally ignorant of US history. There was no great organized crime problem in the US until prohibition of alcohol was enacted and criminals organized to meet the illegal demand. That is plain old historical fact.

And the fact that several states have within the past couple of decades legalized medical marijuana is not a claim its a fact. To are the other jurisdictions I mentioned which have either relaxed or decriminalized marijuana. So are the public opinion polls.

Likewise is the fact that Barack Obama has already instructed federal agencies to stop raiding medical marijuana facilites. So much for your fed threats.

Becoming hysterical in the face of facts does not help your arguments either. The fact that one acre of hemp can produce more paper then four acres of trees has been well known since 1914 and nothing has ever disputed that even though recent studies come to the same conclusion.
And your ignorance when it comes to planting and harvesting hemp and converting it to biofuel is actually quite laughable. There are millions of idle irrigated crop acres already available in the US. There are many more millions within irrigation systems in the west. If farmers were allowed to plant hemp next spring it could be converted to ethanol in the plants that already exist for corn by next fall. With the proper incentives we could convert to hemp produced ethanol within five years.
Likewise you no nothing about the land requirements for hemp which grows more like a weed than a crop and is still very prevalent in many states because they can completely eradicate it.
One of our nations losses has been the losses of farms and farmers who did not have a cash crop they could depend on and abandoned their farms.
That acreage is currently laying idle.There are millions and millions of acres of land in the west that are encompassed by irrigation systems yet are not irrigated and only produce sparse grass and sage brush.

Hemp does not require a great deal of water or fertilizer and two things this nation needs right now more than anything else are jobs and business opportunities.
Also we are running out of trees and mountain tops, not to mention courting desaster with climate change hemp also provides valuable benefits in both those things. Hemp extracts carbon dioxide and produces oxygen which is what we also need more trees for.
All this information by the way is easily accessible on the internet and you might benefit by exploring it rather than wasting all your time babbling senseless rhetoric.

No, latest public opinion polls show the support for decriminalization or legalizsation now runs about 70% in some national polls. Public support for medical marijuana runs much higher than that, as clearly evidenced by the number of states that have now legalized it.
And I think your analogy of support for legalization of marijuana and nuclear energy is actually very appropriate. True public opinion against nuclear energy was very high in the 1970's. Not because of anything Jane Fonda did but because of the accident at Three Mile Island. Public opinion against legalizing marijuana would have been as high if not higher. But now pubic opinion has grown for both and we have plans for 128 new nuclear power plants on the fast track for approval and several new initiatives from a wide range of sources supporting legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. So I'm not sure what purpose your analogy served other than to prove my point.
But if you doubt the validity of the figures I've given feel free to look them up yourself rather then simply making claims through your own ignorance of the issue.

And I didn't mean to insult what appears to one of your personal heroes. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of our drug laws and the people who made them. Personally I don't think much of Old Tail Gunner Joe but if you do that's fine. But you can't dispute what are well documented facts.

And my only point is to bring some much needed facts to this debate which are much better then name calling, labeling, degrading which are the obvious indications of someone who has defeated his arguments and discredited himself.
so what's your point except you wish 2009 reality lived up to your med pot droopy hippy dreams from 1969 ?

Posted by: Uncle Homer | 2009-03-04 12:31:21 AM


Shane--
1. Let me take that question to the next logical step: What if everything were legalized, completely? Would crime increase or decrease? It would decrease, naturally, because nothing would be a crime anymore. But would those acts currently considered to be crimes increase? The obvious answer is yes--for there would be no disincentive to commit them.

Since you refuse to answer the actual question that was asked, allow me to point out the fallacies involved in your circular dodge.

If all crimes that did not harm the person or property of another were suddenly legalized you would see the largest drop in crimes in US history. If for no other reason then things like drug use, gambling and prostitution would no longer be crimes. That should be obvious.

But at the same time there would also be a drop in several other crimes not to mention violence because of the elimination of the blackmarket and the criminals and crimes that thrive on it. Just like with drugs these criminal elements depend on something what is wanted and consumed by the public and at the same time prohibited by the government.

Therefore the laws against these things actually cause far more harm than good. Of course there are always those who would claim that these laws are necessary to protect the individual from them selves. But actually they only thing that protects as individual from themselves in personal responsibility. There also those who would claim that society needs to be protected but if we look at the places where gambling and prostitution are legal clearly society is not being harmed by them.

Shane--
You didn't put much thought into that question, did you? Either that, or you were hoping I wouldn't. As they say, "Fat chance."---

Apparently enough thought for you to completely avoid answering it.

Shane--
2. The United States also currently has a crime rate lower than the average for the entire 20th century. Are you going to argue with success? Or did you figure you could just quote a number, stand there all stone-faced with your hands on your hips, and call the case made, without offering any proof whatsoever?--

Actually crime rates are increasing again in almost every category. But granted they are down from what they were when rival gangs were battling for territory to sell prohibited drugs in.

Shane--
3. What would gangs sell? Let's see, there's crack, heroin, ecstasy. Also massage parlours, numbers rackets, illegal gambling casinos. Don't forget bootleg music and movies, counterfeit goods, stolen cars, fencing burgled goods, smuggled weapons, and of course the old standbys loan sharking, racketeering, extortion, and contract murder. And all of that is just for starters. You are so naive.--

You certainly do make a good case for legalizing all drugs, gambling, and prostitution which would eliminate half of your list and create enormous tax revenues and cost savings to combat the more serious crimes you mention.

I'm glad to see you coming over to our side.

Shane--
4., 5. Translation: Marijuana's effects are not as predictable as you so insultingly stated. Both alcohol and marijuana impair reaction time and motor control. To a degree they also alter time perception. The degree to which alcohol does this can be predicted by a blood-alcohol chart used by every patrolman. You have not provided equivalent data for marijuana because no such data exists. The fact that the high maxes out at a certain level is not the same as having a reliable, objective way for a stoner to measure his degree of impairment based on amount smoked. Therefore it's Shane 1, DesCartes 0. Next time you decide to indulge in some loud conversation, you had best be prepared to back it up.----

Actually your quite wrong there are charts showing levels of marijuana impairment. The problem is that not much impairment exists. Part of that is because Marijuana is rather self limiting. It doesn's matter is you smoke one joint or six you can only get so intoxicated. While on the other hand if you sit down and have one drink you not even be impaired. But each one after that creates more impairment up to and including death (which incidentally happens every year in the US} An interesting comparison is that ingestion of alcohol can actually result in reverse human development. In small amounts a person is an adult, higher concentrations make them unable to talk properly, higher concentrations make them unable to walk, even higher concentrations render a person unconscious and high enough concentrations cease all life functions.
Also it is common to cite statistics of how many committed crimes while under the influence of drugs. Where the statistics usually lie, however, is that by far the most common of those drugs is alcohol.

Shane--
6. I said I drank; I did not say how much. (I actually have about one drink a week.) So on what grounds did you decide I was an alcoholic? Why, of course, on none at all.--

Then I wouldn't call you an alcoholic. I'd call you a drug user.

Shane--
You just wanted to have a name to call me so you could retire with just a shred of dignity, at least in your own eyes.--

I won't defend New Descartes on that point but I find it laughably ironic that you would seem to take offense as someone else doing it when name calling, labeling, and degrading are your stock in trade.

Shane--
And at least my arguments contain some meat; yours consist almost entirely of self-justifying emotional blather and blaming everyone else for your actions. It was you who cast the first stone with your "cockeyed individuals" crack, and made your whole argument about your personal experiences; therefore you don't get to complain about others making the debate personal. You beat us all to it; now, reap what you have sown.---

I only want to interrupt your extended personal attack here long enough to point out I haven't really seen any "meat" in this argument

Shane--
Now go, and continue to fund killings as you have always done. You're good at that, if at nothing else.----------

I will grant you that you do have a flair for over dramatic phrasing and the fact that what you use it for is utter nonsense does not detract from that one bit.

Posted by: Uncle Homer | 2009-03-04 2:16:25 AM


419

Let's see how easily your so called logic is here.

419--Nobody would buy weed at Revco if they could buy it from any black market asshole, gun or not - as long as it was a dollar cheaper.. With two generations of wipeheads now supporting the drug black market, very little pot tax revenue would ever reach government if it was ever legalized.
-------------------------------------------------

If that were the case there would be a thriving black market for beer and wine everywhere. There is not any such thing and both state and federal governments raise a substantial portion of their revenue from the sale of alcohol.

419--No pirate grower would give it up in a legal pot world, they would just undercut legal pot by 99 cents and reel weiners like you in .. behold !
----------------------------------------------

I'm just guessing but I bet on other days you are a staunch support of the free market economy and capatalism. The exact same thing would apply here. Competition in the market place would prevail and since there is no large scale activity surround beer, wine and liquor your example is easily defeated.

You also neglect the fact that just like home brewers many people would just grow their own marijuana cutting out all the middle men all together and the government could still reap the benefits of taxation by requiring a growing permit.

419--how little revenue reached the music publishing companies after Napster made stealing music so easy-- the sacred music bizz so many claimed to honour:
------------------------------------------------

The real question is how little revenue did the music business actually loose due to Napster. Their alleged loses where strictly theoretical.

419--well back stabbing public audio thugs fucked the golden goose the first moment they could...so the sacred n=-music providers suffered an immediate 50- 75% drop in revenues--Sony lost 90% --& don't give us any commie big corp crocodile tears- that was a technical gang rape and you know it,
-------------------------------------------------

Really? Could you provide any sources for these figures because I just did a quick internet search and found no such figures at all. Admittedly that could have been my fault so I would be most interested in looking at your sources

419--Now imagine the feds selling pot- another sacred pop culture industry hedonists are trying to lure down a dark alley --
--------------------------------------------------

Who said anything about the government selling pot. We're talking about good old fashioned free market capitalism selling pot, and the government taxing that just like the do alcohol and tobacco.

419--
legal pot would instantly see a 99.9% loss of revenues because pot users are life long systematic cheaters -
--------------------------------------------------

Now, now 419 its just such gross generalizations and false accusations that thoroughly discredit you to the point of not being taken seriously at all.

419--
thats why when the police visit pot people on business they bring along dogs,, body armour and high powered guns...

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

Cops always bring along dogs, wear body armor and carry high powered weapons every where they go, especially if they have to raid criminal enterprises. But you never see those come into play when they are going into a convenience store to buy a donut which is where pot would be if it were legalized.

419--
if weed was legal, it would be an economic disaster for any government that attempted to be dope providers to a bunch of civilian crooks- not only would the pot stores go bankrupt, but the police would still be running around 24-7 hunting down pot cheaters, pot thieves, * pot smugglers- many with guns, all with chips on their shoulders------ pretty much the same as it is right now--
--------------------------------------------------

Well at least your partially right it would be pretty much just like it is now with the sale of other legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco. You don't see anything of the things your talking about with them. And as far as drugs go marijuana is far less harmful than either of those legal drugs.

419--
to which we add-- we don't think you ever got over your mother insisting you to tidy up your room.. is that it Mr. Noobdescartes? hedonism is the art of being self absorbed, sort of like a kleenex blowing its own nose on itself
--------------------------------------------------
I won't defend New Descartes on his resorting to a personal level here. But on the other hand I sure don't blame him either.

I won't defend hedonism either but likewise can't condemn it because I believe in both personal freedom and personal responsibility.

I'll just say that your personal attacks and the arguments you presented here share one thing in common. They are both meaningless.

Posted by: Uncle Homer | 2009-03-04 2:56:46 AM


Homer,

1a. Never use words like “surely” or “obviously” in debate; they weaken not strengthen your argument. I may have already told you this (as I’ve told countless others who believe themselves to be shining beacons of Bud-inspired truth) but it bears repeating. My mind may be closed in your eyes, but at least it’s not drug-addled. Furthermore, what do you mean by questioning the existence of double-blind studies on marijuana on the one hand, and then pointing out two places—the US and Europe—where they have presumably been done? I have not rejected any studies; in my post to Kiru I said they were a start. But only a start. The FDA and AMA remain unconvinced. And quit your sophomoric whimpering about bullying, for God’s sake—they’re just glyphs on a screen. They can’t hurt you, unless they lull you to sleep and you fall off your chair.

1b. Supporting legalization is not the same as approving for the pharmacopeia. If marijuana is to be relisted, it must be subjected to the same stringent approval process that any other drug requires; the fact that you can grow it in your basement does not change this. Unless you can tell me why marijuana ought to receive special treatment?

2a. Restating the same thing over and over does not amount to turning falsehood into truth. And by what criteria do you measure objectivity? Science in the last three decades has become intensely politicized, and those involved in marijuana research, AIDS research, or anything that smacks of counterculture are hardly more objective than any other partisan. As for the new administration, don’t hold your breath. The FDA is a bureaucracy; many of its senior policy-makers have been working there for decades. American policy is not likely to change nearly as much as Obama worshippers think.

2b. First, the word is “rogue”; “rouge” is what a woman puts on her face. (While you’re at it, learn to use the return key.) Secondly, a fallacy is an error in logic, not an erroneous conclusion, so stop bandying about buzzwords whose meanings you don’t know. Thirdly, according to eyecareAmerica, reviews by the National Eye Institute have concluded that marijuana is no more effective at treating glaucoma than the wide array of legal drugs now available.
(http://www.eyecareamerica.org/eyecare/treatment/alternative-therapies/marijuana-glaucoma.cfm)
Fourthly, the simple sentence “doctors have been recommending it to patients for decades” does not suggest overall acceptance. Doctors have been writing prescriptions for goofballs for decades, too. They’ve also been beating their dogs, running around naked, cheating on their wives, and doing everything else other people do. All that sentence means is that more than one doctor has done it. I realize the true number is much higher, but the way you structure the sentence makes it look like you’re hiding something. And you probably are.

2c. Has it occurred to you that many of the baby boom generation (the only generation in which we would observe the long-term effects of marijuana) smoke both tobacco and marijuana, and that the effects of marijuana might therefore be attributed to heavy tobacco use? Marijuana is smoked without filters. It has a far higher tar content than tobacco. Also, the Tashkin study was of necessity restricted to people younger than 60, because people older than that were not likely exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried. The next 20 years will be more instructive.

3a. There’s that word again, “obviously.” Do you think that if you keep saying it over and over again it will give strength to your argument? (It won’t, you know.) As for the hemp/nylon thing, you’re beating another dead myth. By the 1940s, American rope had for decades been made not from cannabis but from Manila hemp (not true hemp), it being judged cheaper to import this inferior material from the Philippines than to grow it locally. Before the Marijuana Tax Act, the amount of hemp cultivation in the U.S. had been long on the wane; by 1937, only two square miles of it were under cultivation Stateside. Also, hemp rope was unsuitable for South Pacific duty, because in spite of their colossal heat the islands were susceptible to frequent squalls of torrential rain that left everything damp and rotting. And that was after treating it with tar, as had been done for centuries, to stave off rot. Sorry, no corporate conspiracy.

3b. I contend that marijuana is not feasible as a biofuel crop because even among the terrestrial plants it is not among the top producers of oil per acre. Once acre of hemp will produce about 37 gallons of oil. Compare that to oil palm (610); coconut (276); and even the lowly peanut (109). With blue-green algae, yields in excess of 30,000 gallons per acre are possible. By which I further contend that you have not done your homework and have bought into the hemp cult lock, stock, barrel, and cock. Furthermore, blue-green algae grows in salt water (easily imported from the sea). Finally, there is no such thing as “fresh-water water” and both the water cycle (Grade 3 science) and global warming (if you buy into that bunkum) ensure that we’ll have no shortage of water in the years ahead. Hemp does make good paper, though.

4a. We don’t care what you find trying; this is not about you; it has never been about you; please do try to get over yourself. Furthermore, I’m not inventing anything. It is a myth that the gangs that became known for bootlegging during Prohibition did not exist before then. They existed as far back as the 19th century, and were involved in all kinds of evil-doing, such as racketeering, loan-sharking, extortion, gambling, and the usual laundry list of vices. Even during Prohibition, bootlegging was just one part of an extensive underworld network; what really contributed to the crime spree of the 1930s was the Depression and the new mobility given to criminals by the automobile, who could pull a job and flee across state lines the same day. It was largely owing to this that the FBI was created, to help deal with interstate crime.

4b. A little time in the logic tank will make clear to you that these gangs are in it for one thing: money. They go to the risk and trouble of producing these illegal products because they know people will buy them. They then use the money they get from the users to buy themselves bling-bling, flashy cars, flashy guns, and occasionally to shoot each other up. No buyers, no market. And if these gangs are really being run from prison (which is tough if you’re in a supermax and in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day), there’s an elegantly simple solution: Make drug trafficking an automatic death penalty, and kill them all.

4c. Alcohol has been an accepted part of our culture for centuries. Drugs are largely the result of one aberrant and self-indulgent generation. Most people strongly disapprove of drugs, unlike alcohol. And your idea that human nature cannot be changed is given the lie considering how much of it is due to simple fashion. Look at attitudes towards tobacco today compared to thirty years ago.

5a. It’s one thing to say “support is rising.” It’s another to say under what conditions, and what the actual support figures are. If they increase from 5 to 7 percent, you can honestly say they’re rising, if not to the point where it would make a difference.

5b. Yes, it’s always “blame America” with the pro-pot crowd, isn’t it? Since when has the U.N. done what the U.S. wished? If that were true Bush would have had a much easier time invading Iraq. Every inconvenient fact you explain away as a government or corporate conspiracy. By the way, it is still, and has always, been illegal to possess marijuana in the Netherlands. You were allowed to smoke it in the coffee shops, but not to take any home with you. And still, sixty percent of the dope produced in that country is for the black market. By the way, given recent legal and criminal trends in the U.K. (which is increasingly an Orwellian Big-Brother state), do you really want to hold them up as an example of the right way to do anything?

6. The problem is they’re only obvious to you. And I generally dump only on those who dump on me first. I debate all sorts of topics and I have yet to find one (with the possible exception of abortion) where the debaters get so asininely personal and emotive. And simply stating that my facts are “limited” and “slanted” is not the same as proving such. And again, stop with the “bullying” crap. It’s a favourite accusation of those who just can’t convince that other nastybad, insensitive cloddy of the ineffable rightness of their position and who has cwushed their wittle feewers. Bullying requires threats and intimidation and I’ve done neither. I’m also not in any kind of partnership with 419 although I agree with much of what he says.

P.S. I’ll be impressed if you post facts that I can check and find to be true. (Your assertions that hemp was a top pick for biodiesel, for instance, turned out to be crap. I knew that even before I checked, because I’ve already done lots of research on this area.) I’ll be even more impressed if you can post them in such a way that doesn’t sound like you’re trying to weasel around the truth. And I’ll be blown out of the water if you’ll just be a man and attach your real name to your ideas, thus assuring me that you’re proud enough of your arguments to do that.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-04 7:06:31 AM


Homer,

1a. The point I was making was that legalizing something that was formerly criminal will of course reduce the crime rate: The act that was once a crime no longer is, so the overall crime rate goes down. That’s not a dodge; that’s simple logic. You advocate the very same dodgy hypothesis DesCartes does, with the sole stipulation that only acts that damage person or property be retained. That’s an incredibly simple-minded, almost childish view of crime and law. What about making bombs in your basement? No theft; no harm done; unless one goes off. Or how about shooting machine guns in a public place, but trying really, really hard to miss every time?

1b. Bottlecrap. The gangs would simply move to other enterprises, or for that matter other drugs. The gangs that Prohibition made famous were beating shopkeepers and pimping women long before 1919. If anything, smuggling is easier now than it was in the 20th century. By the way, do you apply this “prohibition logic” to machine guns, rocket launchers, and nuclear bombs? Those are illegal too, I believe.

1c. Personal responsibility is not something the baby boomers have been all that keen to assume, and they have passed their indifference to this vital attribute down to their offspring. It’s a lot less common than you seem to think. Laws must be made that account for all natures. And where have you been? Gambling addiction and complaints of female exploitation are endemic where casinos and prostitution are legal. And haven’t you heard of the AIDS epidemic? Condoms don’t provide complete protection (and sometimes break).

2. Actually, the drying up the drug supply has gangs fighting for what little product is left and turf on which to sell it. (So apparently the drug supply can be reduced, how about that!) By the way, by how much have these crime rates gone up since I checked them last year? And in what categories?

3. Now do you understand the point I was making in 1.? It’s easy to have a zero crime rate if you legalize everything. Good luck legalizing crack, Homer. There are still some of us out there who think moral standards in a society are worth upholding. And who said it was always wrong to hurt people? That’s an assumption you made. Why should your assumptions and articles of faith be any more valid than mine?

4., 5. I thought there might be a chart, Homer, which is why I asked DesCartes to point me to one. She couldn’t, and attempted to conceal this failure behind a wall of outraged bafflegab. And don’t give me that “little impairment” crap; studied have shown that a single joint can cut your motor coordination in half; two joints and it’s more like two-thirds. If such a chart exists, point me to it. And cheese the conspiracy angle. The statistics lie, the government lies, the corporations lie, they all lie, except you and others who have seen the light of the beautiful weed. It’s the perfect defence for you. It explains everything while proving nothing. Just drop those clumps of mud in the water and stir, stir, stir.

6a. I did not ask you what you’d call me, nor is it relevant. What you think does not matter.

6b. I’m a mirror, Homer; what you give, you get back (sometimes amplified by an order of magnitude or two). My dialogue with DesCartes was respectful at first but quickly degraded as she started unravelling and blaming “cockeyed individuals” for her own personal choices. And here’s another word you should beware of: “But.” “I’m not racist, but—” “What you say is true, but—” “I’m usually honest, but—” Let’s beware of the “buts” in our lives. It is the word of the obfuscator.

6c. By purchasing illegal drugs, you are lining the pockets of gangs—gangs known to send drugs south and bring guns north and shoot up our streets. There were four shootings overnight in Surrey. Every Canadian who purchases illegal drugs is an accessory to that. Bob and weave all you like; it is the willingness of the user to accept blood for pot that is the root cause of the violence. The lives of others are less important than his right to get high. Disprove that, and you win. Fail, and I win. Now get to work.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-04 7:32:33 AM


Homer,

“1. If that were the case there would be a thriving black market for beer and wine everywhere…”

1. One important difference: Today’s drinkers are not accustomed to breaking the law to get their product. Marijuana smokers are already longtime scofflaws.

2. Marijuana can be grown at home, true, but most folks don’t bother (or can’t, if they live in an apartment or condo). Otherwise why would the gangs bother selling it?

3. “Loose”? And excuse me, the declining record sales stats are real

4. Come on, Homer. Music sales have been falling for years, down 20% from this time last year alone. And digital download sales, which were supposed to have been the industry’s salvation, haven’t picked up enough to help much. If they had offered downloads from the start, instead of sticking to their old business model, they might have staved this off, but now everyone is used to pirating songs for free, so why pay 99 cents? This speaks to 419’s point about black markets—if both black and white markets are equally accessible (as on the Internet), how many of those already used to breaking the law will pick the white one?

5. Capitalism is already selling pot.

6. “Now, now”? Please. 419 is right—pot users have acquired the habit of breaking the law for something they totally do not need. Why go straight if the only incentive is a higher price at the legal place?

7. Actually, you wouldn’t. Because most donut-store customers drive and you can’t drive after you’ve smoked pot.

8. Marijuana is not less harmful than tobacco. And it’s only less harmful than alcohol because of alcohol’s lower LD50 and the fact that practically everyone uses alcohol regularly but the number of heavy marijuana smokers is quite small.

9. “I won’t defend, but I won’t condemn either.” The non-stand of the morally ambiguous fence-sitter. DesCartes got personal FIRST. Justify that if you can.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-04 7:51:25 AM


Shane--

"The lives of others are less important than his right to get high. Disprove that, and you win. Fail, and I win. Now get to work."

The unrealistic perception of people who want to turn things they perceive as sins into crimes creates the mechanisms that get people hurt and killed for no real reason."

That's the easiest one I ever won Shane.

But don't worry I'll still get back with you tonight because you are in need of a lot of education.

Posted by: Uncle Homer | 2009-03-04 7:53:29 AM


Shane--

"The lives of others are less important than his right to get high. Disprove that, and you win. Fail, and I win. Now get to work."

The unrealistic perception of people who want to turn things they perceive as sins into crimes creates the mechanisms that get people hurt and killed for no real reason."

That's the easiest one I ever won Shane.

But don't worry I'll still get back with you tonight because you are in need of a lot of education.

Posted by: Uncle Homer | 2009-03-04 7:54:22 AM


Homer wrote: "The unrealistic perception of people who want to turn things they perceive as sins into crimes creates the mechanisms that get people hurt and killed for no real reason."

This isn't an argument; it's an opinion. An opinion that is itself founded on opinions, such as "unrealistic," "creates the mechanisms," and "no real reason." You haven't proved a thing. There's bollocks, and then there's bollocks on stilts. Did you really manage to convince yourself that this non-argument entitles you to the palm of victory? Let's review the assignment:

Fact: Marijuana is illegal. The gangs who sell it are violent criminals and murderers.

Fact: The marijuana smoker knows this.

Fact: He buys from them anyway, thus adding fuel to the violence.

My conclusion: He considers getting high a higher priority than reducing crime and saving lives.

Your job: Find an alternate conclusion that fits the facts above.

Not your job: Whine about human nature, the supremacy of the lowest common denominator, the difference between crime and sin, and the unrealistic expectations of puritanical dickwads who have committed the supreme folly of raising the sights out of the ditch.

Is the assignment clear now?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-04 8:35:11 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.