Ellen Feiss just cracks me up.

How can people say guns are not necessary for self defense? Trust the police? Where were the cops during the LA Riots? Where were the cops during Katrina (asnwer: awol. "Run away.... run away...).

When things get ugly on a large scale, there are never enough cops to protect everyone.

When things go wrong on a small scale (like someone invades your home) the cops are never there until AFTER the problem. On the good side, they do bring a piece of chalk to trace the corpse. So there is that at least.

JabbaTheButt: No individual has the right to influence my employment if they're not my employer, my customer or myself.

Everyone in your company influences your employment.

Probably_From_Texas: You all can have your pot. Just give me back my assault rifles. I promise to use those responsibly as long as you promise to use yours responsibly. See how that works?

Sure thing. Also, aren't assault rifles legal again?

Why is it that any thread on marijuana is inevitably jack'd by a 2nd Amendment, beat 'em up argument?

Now that I think about it, it happens every time someone writes the "B-B-But Feds..." argument.

/moderate
//legalize pot and guns
///ban fitty cent

Snarfle: He is refering to shortbarreled rifles, semi-automatics are legal now yes.

Flarn: Pot stays in your bloodstream for a month even though you are not high the next day. Alcohol does not.

Pot isn't stored in your bloodstream for a month. It's three days or so. And they don't usually do a blood test, they're expensive. They usually use a urinalysis, which doesn't test for THC. It test for THC metabolites. THC is stored in your body fat. When you burn that fat throughout the day, it releases THC metabolites into your system. Those are what they test for. They can stay in your system anywhere from three days to three months. It's very difficult to pinpoint when you won't show positive, because there are quite a few factors involved, such as body fat, metabolism, amount of THC consumed, form consumed in, quality of product containing THC. It's also not terribly full-proof, as the test can be beated. The way to beat it is very simple, and cost no more than ninety-nine cents. The standard urine test has also been known to indicate a positive result even when subsequent and more thorough methods of testing have shown that the subject is free of THC. It's withdrawl symptoms are generally mild. It doesn't have any capacity to addict anyone, physically. The damage done to the lungs is minor, compared to other forms of smoked vegetable matter. This damage is also reversible, and often goes away after the smoker quits smoking. It's easy to grow. Doesn't require too much other than sunlight and water. It's easy to prepare. Yet for some reason, it's still illegal. Can anyone seriously give me a good reason that it's illegal?

duff234: The other 10 if you were wondering...

Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington

That's a strange mix of red and blue states. This could actually become a reality in less time than I would have thought.

Thrag: You're muddying the waters with semantics. Obvioisly the rebellion of the southern states had popular support in those states, but that does not mean it was a "popular rebellion" in the way I've been using the word. A rebellion of the people against the government, not a rebellion of a government against another government.


In that case, the revolution doesn't fit the definition either.

Sum Dum Gai: Explain to me then why it is constitutional to forbid felons from owning firearms. Or the criminally insane. Or children. They all have full constitutional rights (they can lose the right to vote but this is not guaranteed to every individual citizen). You can't take away a constitutional right.

Until you reach the age of consent, or you are emancipated from your parents, your parent's pretty much own you. If you are criminally insane, then you are a criminal. Criminals choose to infringe upon the rights of others, and then have their rights taken away, by our judiciary system.

This man does not approve.

step by step, inch by inch.

Looking back, I obviously wrote my long post on THC while I was high. Seriously, my grammar, spelling, and everything else were terrible. Except for the arguments. I still stand by those.

Government regulation and illegality only serve to create a black market that cannot be taxed regulated or easily monitored.

This applies to everything from booze to guns to hash.

Probably_from_Texas - I love my assault rifle (now legal) too, but when was the last time someone was mugged by a stoner? Pot may mess you up but it hardly makes you farking empowered; not even enough to walk to the fridge sometimes.

Unfortunately medical marijuana will never become legal here in Florida.
There are too many old people who have been brained washed by the government that pot is evil.
What irony the very same people that would benefit the most from it.

Probably_From_Texas: You all can have your pot. Just give me back my assault rifles. I promise to use those responsibly as long as you promise to use yours responsibly. See how that works?


I have no problem with that.

'cause I know I'm gonna be responsible with my pot use. (hypothetical)

Well now I'm glad you asked me why I'm against it. So to answer the question you DIDN'T ask:
My employer requires drug tests.

simple yet eloquent bash.org quote:
"the only urine test they'll get out of me is a TASTE TEST"

SchlingFo: A product grown within a state and sold only within the state has no bearing on interstate commerce.

Sure it does! Playing constitutional debbil's advocate, here, and thusly:

By creating your own (evil) state's supply you diminish the ability of my own (virtuous) state's gentleman farmers to market their product.

Voila! Interstate commerce impact!

Hey, if illegally obtained funds are taxable, then illegally produced goods are marketable like any other.

mr_name: The question is: why do so many people want pot legalized? The only ones are those who are addicts.



wrong. I didn't even bother to read the rest of your post, you're wrong right off the get-go.

/haven't had weed in decades, thus not an addist.
//still in favor of decriminalization or legalization.

I think we should start assigning blame.

That is, once marijuana is legalized, or decriminalized, or whatever, everybody should point their finger at those individuals who wanted to keep it illegal and yell:

"You were WRONG! You were WRONG! You were STUPID for keeping marijuana illegal all those years. You should be PUNISHED for all the people who were put in jail, whose lives were ruined just because you were a STUBBORN IDIOT!!! You should never have been elected or appointed because you are DEFECTIVE!"

I want a list of names. People to hold up to public scorn.

And I want them OUT of power. FOREVER. To have their names stricken from the temples and their families to be impoverished. To be driven from the land and forced to steal food from crows.

/It's only fair

Addi_c_t! dammit. Although I may be an addist, I'm in favor of adddition, especially if it's to my bank account.

and WTF with no html?

Who stands to make the most money if pot is legalized? Cigarette companies and the government. Let's legalize pot and tax the hell out of it. It's time for the hippies to contribute to society!

Sum Dum Gai: The people are supposed to be able to over-awe the military? I think we need nukes, and anti-aircraft, and anti-personnel land mines, and rocket launchers, and a whole host of other stuff for that to be even close to the case anymore. If that's the purpose of the second amendment then it's already useless.

Actually. It appears our distant neighbors in the east are doing a pretty good job of holding off the American military with very little weaponry by comparison. If the government would lay off assault rifles and explosive compounds (not chemical/nuclear) then I'd be happy.

sweet. (Peter Laugh)

My hands can touch anything but themselves...

I hate drugs of recreational use but would vote to legalize them, pot and LSD. Ecstasy is a maybe until we get more data.

I would not want to have the stims legalized however; PCP and meth are pretty darned dangerous.

To the folks in the semantic 2nd amendment argument:

Holy Farking Rhetoric, Batman!!

state's rights!

..are what we effectively resigned in the civil war, and continued to erode through reconstruction and into today.

now i imagine most all of us are against slavery, but the argument was very similar to what i read of weed above: "A product grown within a state and sold only within the state has no bearing on interstate commerce. The feds have no constitutional domain, and they know it."

my point is that we're talking about a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too situation: if it's ok for the federal government to trump state's rights over slavery, how can we also argue the states may refute the fed's wishes on weed? neither need qualify as interstate commerce, both qualify as human protection in an odd sort of way.

mr_name: The question is: why do so many people want pot legalized? The only ones are those who are addicts. For the rest of us who have stopped it, we know that it's just another form of rebellion by a childish culture trying to mark freedom with a weed.


You sound like someone who has no confidence in his own self-control, so you want Big Daddy to tell you what to do. This is characteristic of people with addictive personalities, who assume everyone else is as weak as they are. William Bennett is a prominent example of this sort of thinking.

There are many who have never smoked pot, or used any other illegal drugs, who believe the war on drugs to be the most disastrous social engineering experiment ever conducted in America. It's destroyed our social fabric, and made us into the country with the biggest percentage of its people in jail.

Among the non-users who oppose the war on drugs is Nobel Prize winning economist (and staunch conservative) Milton Friedman, who has calculated that the war on drugs causes at least 10,000 annual murders that would not occur if drugs were legal.

Read up on America before the war on drugs. We had addicts then, too, but they didn't cause the damage they cause now.

"Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to X?" = good for freedom

"Why should anyone be allowed to X?" = bad for freedom

Train of Thought:
"How did this devolve into a 2nd amendment battle?


We should have both guns and weed. There, the end."


http://www.gunsanddope.com/

Hold freedom. Smoke freedom.

Jabbathebutt:"Well now I'm glad you asked me why I'm against it. So to answer the question you DIDN'T ask:
My employer requires drug tests. So why should I have to worry about some a-hole smoking pot around me and having an influence on my employment just because the doper just has to have his/her pot? Do these legalization laws cover anything like this??? The answer is No, they do not, thus my reason for being against any legalization of pot.
Stick with pills, they dont blow pot smoke into others lives."

Holy shiat. Maybe freedom does need limits. This person really needs to make sure she doesn't hurt herself. Here's a hint. Think. Speak. Repeat.

"In that case, the revolution doesn't fit the definition either. "

How exactly? Was there a pre-existing American government that was in a federation with the government in England that voted to secede from that federation?

Big Al: you do realize they are only advocating what we now know as the National Guard...right?

You do realize that your grasp of our national history is completely out of sync with reality, right?

evilmousse: my point is that we're talking about a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too situation: if it's ok for the federal government to trump state's rights over slavery, how can we also argue the states may refute the fed's wishes on weed? neither need qualify as interstate commerce, both qualify as human protection in an odd sort of way.

Your argument founders on the fact that slaves were not "a product." They were people, and entitled to protection under the Constitution. Furthermore, your argument does not address the practical difference between laws against predatory behavior (murder, rape, enslavement) and laws against activities that some people find offensive (sodomy, pornography, some drugs.) In one case you have a victim, in the other the "victim" is the same person as the criminal.

Big Al: I really don't care what they said,


Obviously.



Rhodekyll: Probably just a 9mm, maybe something a little more powerful or nice-looking but probably not.

I certainly agree with your right to own a weapon for self-defense, but please, before you buy a "nice-looking" gun, get some education on the subject. There is an enormous body of useful information available and you need to read up. A lot.

Sum Dum Gai: The people are supposed to be able to over-awe the military? I think we need nukes, and anti-aircraft, and anti-personnel land mines, and rocket launchers, and a whole host of other stuff for that to be even close to the case anymore. If that's the purpose of the second amendment then it's already useless.


Iraq?

Vietnam?

Algeria?

Cuba?

And a whole bunch of other insurgencies that have succeeded based on small arms and popular support?

knobmaker:

>Your argument founders on the fact that slaves were not
>"a product." They were people, and entitled to
>protection under the Constitution.

keep in mind that this isn't honestly my opinion, only my playing devil's advocate in what i see as a near catch-22.

product is not the word, but PROPERTY is. slaves were, at the time, considered property and not people. life is still owned today, though now not human. will we eventually extend our compassion to all life and therefore pets and cattle? (stupid question, i know) heck, now we're getting into owning IDEAS these days. it's all in what we define as and how we regard property.

>Furthermore, your argument does not address the practical
>difference between laws against predatory behavior
>(murder, rape, enslavement) and laws against activities
>that some people find offensive (sodomy, pornography, some
>drugs.)

all of which is fine in the mindset that the slaves are humans with rights, which wasn't a given at the time. to some, they were private property kept not just in-state, but largely on the land they owned. the same cries of "what i do with my property on my land is my business.. the feds have no constitutional right to trump state power" were heard. and largely correct, actually: feds at the time could constitutionally intervene on national defense and interstate subjects; not much else supposedly.

>In one case you have a victim, in the other the
>"victim" is the same person as the criminal.

i know no matters of "victimless crimes" having any bearing on the constitutionality of federal intervention one way or the other.

morality != the constitutional division of power between states and fed. neither slaves nor marijuana meet the criteria for federal regulation constitutionally (with the obviously flawed supposition that people may be property) so long as they are kept in-state. morality, laws, other systems point to differences, but constitutionally, i beleive we have to treat both the same for they meet the constitution's criteria similarly, barring people=property.

drugwar proponents DO see their crusade much the same as abolitionists must have.. they're both moral crusades against the private actions of others anyway.

mr_name: The question is: why do so many people want pot legalized? The only ones are those who are addicts. For the rest of us who have stopped it, we know that it's just another form of rebellion by a childish culture trying to mark freedom with a weed.

Pot will not and does not make you free. It will only cause you to be addicted and dependant. Yet another curltural mistake America is walking right in to.

I know many others will disagree with me on this, but that's the addiction talking.

Go back and read my messages. Now, get this: for religious and philosophical reasons, I don't use any mind-altering substances of any kind (with the possible exception of gingko biloba). No alcohol. No tobacco. No caffeine. No sugar (medical reasons). And I have never, ever so much as taken a single puff of marijuana, nor knowingly eaten it in food form (and if I ever did so unknowingly [it wouldn't've been in the form of a brownie, since I can't have sugar and loathe the taste of chocolate], I never noticed any effect). If it became legal tomorrow, I doubt I would use it even then, unless canniboids were indeed shown to qualify as a vitamin (which medical evidence does currently support).

Read my message with the photos, and then take the challenge therein. I noted the cities of the victims. Find the one that lives nearest you, take a DV camcorder or cell phone with camcorder capability with you, go to the family or other loved one of that person, knock on their door, and tell them that you believe that their loved one's death was worth it to keep marijuana unconstitutionally illegal. Tell them that to their face, film it, and upload a link to the resulting video here.

Until you've done so, you stand revealed to all of FARKdom as a hypocrite (the one sin that Jesus Christ condemned more often and more strongly than He did all other sins combined!).

www.pushingback.com

Oh, and mr_name, in the immortal words of "Uncle" from Jackie Chan Adventures: "One more thing":

You used the terms "addicts," "addicted," and "addiction" in your post. Assuming that you're not a troll, well, in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, "You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means." Addiction is a medical term with a specific medical meaning. In the entire recorded history of civilization (and yes, hemp has been used all that time - remember, the word "cannabis" comes from a five-millennia-old Sumerian word), not only has there not been one single death resulting directly from marijuana toxicity itself, there also has never, ever, been any such thing as a marijuana addict. Ever. Not once.

You see, addiction, as I said, is a specific medical term with a specific medical meaning. It refers to a process of tolerance-development in the central nervous system, mainly the brain, resulting from alterations in levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine. In case you don't know, neurotransmitters are chemicals involved in the transmission of neural firings from one neuron to another across synapses (snynaptic gaps, gaps between the dendrites of one neuron and the axon of another). There are several neurotransmitters, including glyceine, serotonin (how SRRI anti-depressant drugs work - the "S" stands for "serotonin"), etc., but only dopamine is involved in the addictive process. This is, in fact, why the slang term for truly addictive drugs is "dope" - short for "dopamine."

Heroin, morphine, other opiates, cocaine (especially in crack form but even in straight cocaine form), nicotine, alcohol, and caffeine all have various levels of dopamine level manipulation, and all are addictive to some degree or other. Neither THC nor any other ingredient in marijuana involves dopamine, and is therefore not addictive. Period.

Addiction is not a synonym for "habit forming" or something one gets "cravings" for. Addiction results in actual, physical withdrawal symptoms which can themselves be fatal (yes, including alcohol withdrawal: the D.T.s). The phrase "cold turkey" comes from the skin reaction often seen in severe withdrawal cases: cold, clammy, with "goose bumps," like the skin of a plucked cold turkey (or goose, thus the name for the bumps themselves). None of these things happen with marijuana. Quitting it, even suddenly and totally, no matter after how long nor how heavy the usage, causes absolutely no ill effects whatsoever (well, except maybe the return of medical symptoms that were being relieved by it, such as glaucoma, chemotherapy nausea, etc., but that's no more addiction withdrawal than scurvy is for ascorbic acid [Vitamin C] withdrawal).

Yeah, yeah, I know, the Mothers Against Drugs website says that marijuana is addictive, and cites the fact that more youth go to doctors for marijuana dependence than for any other drug. But, they neglect to mention that nearly all of those went because they were so ordered to by court orders as part of their parole or probation, and the doctors were forced to "treat" them for their absolutely non-existent "addictions" for the same reason.

knobmaker: You do realize that your grasp of our national history is completely out of sync with reality, right?

feel free to address anything that I've said to backup that statement. Good luck with that

Train_of_Thought: Do me a favor...tell me what exactly is your argument?

When you play the strawman argument and refuse to address 99% of what I've said, you draw those baseless conclusions

And while you're at it, I'd love to hear why you think the assault weapons ban was constitutional. You're making these observations, let's see you back them up.

For the same reason you cannot say certain words to incite a crowd, there are limits on all freedoms. Pretending like there should be no limits on the sale of firearms is outright dangerous

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: but better education and attempts to deal with poverty here would go a very long way towards helping to curb it.

Fighting poverty NOT making guns easier to get is what will work.

COMALite J,

If anyone in this thread ought to blog, it's you. Awesome.

Took a while to remember this thread. Ah well.

Big Al:

Who said anything about making them easier to get? I would prefer that existing weapons laws be enforced.

I do not believed that they should be outlawed. This unfortunately places me on the side of the ultra-right in this one regard, at least. I have quite a few, and respect what they can do. I feel safe enough owning them.

If you do, then we disagree.

Assisting the poor is a noble goal. Measures to alleviate poverty and improve education will go far towards reducing violent crime, though eliminating all poverty would seem to be an impossibility.