Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gawker)   Conde Nast tells Reddit they can't accept money for pro-pot legalization ads, so they decide to say "Fark you" to the man and run them for free   (gawker.com) divider line 189
    More: Hero, cold, ballot initiatives, legalization, doublespeaks, marijuana legalization  
•       •       •

16788 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Aug 2010 at 8:04 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2010-08-27 05:22:04 PM  
Condé Nast: Hoisted by their own pot 'tards.
 
2010-08-27 05:24:52 PM  
For Farks sake, just legalize it.
 
2010-08-27 05:26:20 PM  
I love how Conde Nasty sees no problem with accepting money from Scientology and anti-gay ads, but god forbid we discuss the devil weed.
 
2010-08-27 05:28:59 PM  
NutWrench: For Farks sake, just legalize it.

I've never smoked pot in my life, but THIS. What people do to their bodies, harmful or harmless, shouldn't be the government's business. Remember that whole "small government" thingy, conservatives?
 
2010-08-27 05:39:23 PM  
Awesome.
 
2010-08-27 05:50:37 PM  
4chan Ambassador: Remember that whole "small government" thingy, conservatives?

They only remember it when it's convenient to their argument. Otherwise, it doesn't apply.

Of course, it's also possible that they just plain forgot, being as they partake of recreational substances that have shortened their memory span. After all, there's no better way to find out what a Conservative is going to be busted for tomorrow than by finding out what they're campaigning against today, right?
 
2010-08-27 06:22:36 PM  
Reddit is completely unusable today. I had to scroll through about 10 pages or so before I got to content that wasn't people spamming that ad.
 
2010-08-27 06:33:55 PM  
jpmeyer: Reddit is completely unusable today.

As opposed to...
 
2010-08-27 06:35:48 PM  
Great, and I literally just ordered a subscription to the New Yorker and Vanity Fair off Conde Nast's website. *shakes fist*
 
2010-08-27 07:11:05 PM  
lh6.ggpht.com
 
2010-08-27 07:28:39 PM  
This is why the hippies will lose.
 
2010-08-27 07:42:47 PM  
netweavr: This is why the hippies will lose.

Look, man, I just want a new rug.
 
2010-08-27 07:49:41 PM  
4chan Ambassador: I love how Conde Nasty sees no problem with accepting money from Scientology and anti-gay ads, but god forbid we discuss the devil weed.

heh
 
2010-08-27 08:07:56 PM  
netweavr: This is why the hippies will lose.

you sound boring
 
2010-08-27 08:08:51 PM  
Living in the Bay Area, it's almost culture shock to discover people to which this is an issue. Course I said the same thing about SSM in CA and we saw how Prop8 turned out.
 
2010-08-27 08:09:23 PM  
When people start dying from reefer overdoses, we'll see who the real "hero" is.
 
2010-08-27 08:10:22 PM  
Is that what's going on over there? I thought they just got hit by spam bots.
 
2010-08-27 08:14:13 PM  
OOO, OOO, OOOO!!!!!
 
2010-08-27 08:15:22 PM  
4chan Ambassador: I love how Conde Nasty sees no problem with accepting money from Scientology and anti-gay ads, but god forbid we discuss the devil weed.

Oh, so you're conscious and lucid? That must make it hard to find friends.
 
2010-08-27 08:16:11 PM  
If they legalize it, they'll STILL probably give me a drug test for it.
 
2010-08-27 08:16:12 PM  
The second that pot gets legalized I am buying 10,000 shares of Cheetos stock.
 
2010-08-27 08:16:46 PM  
Tune in Monday for the mass firings. Not. Only are they thumbing their noses, they spoke out against the powers that be.
 
2010-08-27 08:17:00 PM  
i911.photobucket.com
 
2010-08-27 08:18:13 PM  
Rev. Skarekroe: When people start dying from reefer overdoses, we'll see who the real "hero" is.

Except for the fact it is physically impossible to smoke enough weed to OD on, you're right.
 
2010-08-27 08:18:27 PM  
Well, is Conde Nast actually the corporate parent? Because if it is, then they have the right (legally, maybe not morally) to change over the management and not allow certain ads (free or not). But it is still an great protest ... as long as it lasts.
 
2010-08-27 08:19:48 PM  
ninjakirby: Living in the Bay Area, it's almost culture shock to discover people to which this is an issue. Course I said the same thing about SSM in CA and we saw how Prop8 turned out.

It's Orange County's fault.

/and most of SoCal/Central Valley, too.
 
2010-08-27 08:20:50 PM  
While I'm here, screw Facebook too, for refusing the Libertarian Party's legalization ads.
 
2010-08-27 08:21:39 PM  
ninjakirby: Living in the Bay Area, it's almost culture shock to discover people to which this is an issue. Course I said the same thing about SSM in CA and we saw how Prop8 turned out.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I live within walking distance of 15-20 dispensaries, maybe more. You know how much crime occurs because of the pot shops? NONE! The people that work in them are probably some of the nicest most relaxed people you will ever meet. And I still have to have a medical license just to buy the shiat. Hopefully you guys in Cali legalize, thus paving the way for other places like Colorado, Washington and Oregon.
 
2010-08-27 08:21:40 PM  
stonicus: Rev. Skarekroe: When people start dying from reefer overdoses, we'll see who the real "hero" is.

Except for the fact it is physically impossible to smoke enough weed to OD on, you're right.


You get to my house immediately with plenty of weed and I will have to test that out....for scientific purposes...
 
2010-08-27 08:22:22 PM  
stonicus: Rev. Skarekroe: When people start dying from reefer overdoses, we'll see who the real "hero" is.

Except for the fact it is physically impossible to smoke enough weed to OD on, you're right.


This sounds like it needs some scientific data for a peer-review study. I say we get a couple pounds of pot, a few vaporizers, some Doritos, and make a weekend of it. Now we just need volunteers for the control group.
 
2010-08-27 08:23:38 PM  
kidsizedcoffin: stonicus: Rev. Skarekroe: When people start dying from reefer overdoses, we'll see who the real "hero" is.

Except for the fact it is physically impossible to smoke enough weed to OD on, you're right.

This sounds like it needs some scientific data for a peer-review study. I say we get a couple pounds of pot, a few vaporizers, some Doritos, and make a weekend of it. Now we just need volunteers for the control group.


Count me in. For science of course.

/I'll bring my vape
 
2010-08-27 08:23:50 PM  
Here's a question for y'all-

If they legalize marijuana...not just CA but the country, do you think employers are going to still fire employees for using?

You see, in order to bust people for DWI on pot, once it's finally farking legal they are going to have to come up with a test to see if you are actually high. I'd presume that would have to be a blood test, although it might could be a saliva test, maybe.

But employers and insurers will still go for the cheap urine test for post employee-injury testing untill they get sued and lose.
Of course, a pee test doesn't show whether you were high at the time of the accident at all, it just shows there's THC metabolites in your pee.

I'm not going to consider the very occasional recreational magic brownie until I can't get fired either.

And it's a stupid, stupid thing. Even the most obnoxious, irresponsible chronic is no match for an alky on the booze in terms of belligerence and danger to people, including behind the wheel of a car.
Not that anyone should operate anything more complicated than a stereo or dvd player while stoned. For crying out loud, sit back and enjoy melting into the couch. Have some food. Put on something spacy.
 
2010-08-27 08:24:41 PM  
ninjakirby: Living in the Bay Area, it's almost culture shock to discover people to which this is an issue. Course I said the same thing about SSM in CA and we saw how Prop8 turned out.

You think the Mormons are behind this too?
 
2010-08-27 08:24:44 PM  
Good job reddit! Come on Drew, join the party! Let's see some pro-pot ads!
 
2010-08-27 08:25:22 PM  
Communist_Manifesto: I live within walking distance of 15-20 dispensaries, maybe more. You know how much crime occurs because of the pot shops? NONE! The people that work in them are probably some of the nicest most relaxed people you will ever meet.

I hate to point out the obvious to you here, but they're nice because they're stoned. They may be nice when they're not stoned, but I can guarantee you that the people working in them are stoned.

/not that there is a damn thing wrong with that
//decriminalisation of marijuana is happening in Massachusetts, very, very, verrry slowly
 
2010-08-27 08:25:44 PM  
Man, speaking of overdosing on weed...I just got back from the dispensary with some Blue Dragon and HOOLORDY is that stuff something else. Gonna have to walk over to Cheba Hut now to pick up some munchies!

Keep up the fight, folks, and I'll smoke one for ya in the meantime!
 
2010-08-27 08:25:45 PM  
Why isn't Fark running Prop 19 ads?
 
2010-08-27 08:26:10 PM  
dumpstertize: Here's a question for y'all-

If they legalize marijuana...not just CA but the country, do you think employers are going to still fire employees for using?

You see, in order to bust people for DWI on pot, once it's finally farking legal they are going to have to come up with a test to see if you are actually high. I'd presume that would have to be a blood test, although it might could be a saliva test, maybe.


The police will just drive you to Taco Bell. If you actually eat any of that shiat you will be immediately found guilty.
 
2010-08-27 08:26:34 PM  
I'll turn my adblock off if you run these ads, Drew.
 
2010-08-27 08:26:47 PM  
Ball Zitch: Rev. Skarekroe: When people start dying from reefer overdoses, we'll see who the real "hero" is.

At least they'll die happy:


I'll take the one on the left
 
2010-08-27 08:26:53 PM  
DaJesus: Good job reddit! Come on Drew, join the party! Let's see some pro-pot ads!

THIS.
 
2010-08-27 08:27:19 PM  
Well I guess they can't really use the old fallback that it makes you stupid.
 
2010-08-27 08:29:06 PM  
Oh it makes you stupid alright...but it makes you stupid in all the RIGHT ways, where you start questioning things. And THAT is why they really want to keep it illegal.
 
2010-08-27 08:29:14 PM  
NutWrench: For Farks sake, just legalize it.

Mte.
 
2010-08-27 08:29:17 PM  
jpallan: Communist_Manifesto: I live within walking distance of 15-20 dispensaries, maybe more. You know how much crime occurs because of the pot shops? NONE! The people that work in them are probably some of the nicest most relaxed people you will ever meet.

I hate to point out the obvious to you here, but they're nice because they're stoned. They may be nice when they're not stoned, but I can guarantee you that the people working in them are stoned.

/not that there is a damn thing wrong with that
//decriminalisation of marijuana is happening in Massachusetts, very, very, verrry slowly


Uh, duh? Of course there high as a farking kite, I just think people have this image still that they are crazy criminal drug dealers. I don't know what it is about the west, but we do seem to enjoy our pot a lot more than the east.
 
2010-08-27 08:30:16 PM  
So, what happens when if it is decriminalized at the state level and not at the federal? Does Cali point out that the feds have told other states not to enforce federal laws before (i.e. Arizona) and then they don't arrest people for it? Or will the feds try and yank money from Cali since they are not enforcing it?

\not a troll, just wondering what the rest of fark thinks
 
2010-08-27 08:30:27 PM  
Retractable Weeners: I'll turn my adblock off if you run these ads, Drew.
 
2010-08-27 08:30:48 PM  
Went to the website, not much information there. How about what day the vote is?

"Aww man! We spaced on the date!"
i194.photobucket.com

I did enjoy this on the website:
"Just Say Now is a joint project of Firedoglake and Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP)."
 
2010-08-27 08:31:31 PM  
What happened when I answered with Fark and Digg
comment replyWhich websites do you routinely visit besides Reddit? And do you have a strange feeling of emptiness or fulfillment after your daily internet rounds?
[+] from lvl10troll via AskReddit sent 8 months ago

[-] from lvl10troll via AskReddit sent 8 months ago

Fark and Digg

you forgot hotmail

* context
*
reportare you sure? yes / no
*
mark unread
* reply
 
2010-08-27 08:31:36 PM  
radarlove: Oh it makes you stupid alright...but it makes you stupid in all the RIGHT ways, where you start questioning things. And THAT is why they really want to keep it illegal.

Actually, politicians prolly don't give a fark either way if it is legal or not, but there's too many people who have been misinformed and/or are just blatantly ignorant as to what weed really is and what it does, and it would political suicide for some to try and make it legal.
 
2010-08-27 08:32:36 PM  
4chan Ambassador: NutWrench: For Farks sake, just legalize it.

I've never smoked pot in my life, but THIS. What people do to their bodies, harmful or harmless, shouldn't be the government's business. Remember that whole "small government" thingy, conservatives?


I'm one of the few who never smoked pot in his life, and I also agree.

/Yeah, I'm 32 and I've never smoked pot. I'm rare.
 
2010-08-27 08:32:38 PM  
Rev. Skarekroe: When people start dying from reefer overdoses, we'll see who the real "hero" is.

www.wetheundereducated.com
 
2010-08-27 08:32:43 PM  
DaJesus: Good job reddit! Come on Drew, join the party! Let's see some pro-pot ads!

Sorry, but the FARK.com moderators are too busy policing trolls and making sure threads have useful posts to spend their time populating your ads with "YAY WEED" copy.

Oh, wait!
 
2010-08-27 08:33:16 PM  
gozar_the_destroyer: So, what happens when if it is decriminalized at the state level and not at the federal? Does Cali point out that the feds have told other states not to enforce federal laws before (i.e. Arizona) and then they don't arrest people for it? Or will the feds try and yank money from Cali since they are not enforcing it?

\not a troll, just wondering what the rest of fark thinks


California's police officers don't necessarily have to enforce federal law. The FBI or NSA could still arrest the shiat outta you, but there will be so many people growing it at that point they won't be able to stop it. I wouldn't be surprised to see the feds cut funding or do something else equally retarded. We can't let the population have too much fun now can we?
 
2010-08-27 08:33:34 PM  
gozar_the_destroyer: So, what happens when if it is decriminalized at the state level and not at the federal? Does Cali point out that the feds have told other states not to enforce federal laws before (i.e. Arizona) and then they don't arrest people for it? Or will the feds try and yank money from Cali since they are not enforcing it?

\not a troll, just wondering what the rest of fark thinks


Federal law trumps state law. A state can say "it is legal", and the fed can say "no it isn't". And they didn't say states can't enforce federal laws, they said they had enforce the federal law that exists and couldn't create their own version of it.
 
2010-08-27 08:33:35 PM  
hmmm, Digg going through a major upgrade that IMO sucks. Reddit now showing support for legalizing pot with no monetary gain on their part. As much as I hate to do it, I think I will now create an account on reddit and try it out for a while. I still hate their overly simplistic and dated design, give me the Digg from last week and I will go there in a heartbeat.
 
2010-08-27 08:34:11 PM  
As the guy who always seems to be around when somebody fires up but never has any of his own, I'm really getting a kick out of just kind of, poking my head in to see what's going on.

Seriously though, fire up.
 
2010-08-27 08:34:14 PM  
The Angry Hand of God: The police will just drive you to Taco Bell. If you actually eat any of that shiat you will be immediately found guilty.

*snicker*

They could put you in the back of the cruiser with an open family-size box of twinkies...and just leave the camera recording...

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as you can see the defendant is cramming three twinkies into his mouth sideways...clearly he was stoned."

Yeah...note to self...when national legalization comes, buy stock in hostess...
 
2010-08-27 08:36:50 PM  
The Angry Hand of God: dumpstertize: Here's a question for y'all-

If they legalize marijuana...not just CA but the country, do you think employers are going to still fire employees for using?

You see, in order to bust people for DWI on pot, once it's finally farking legal they are going to have to come up with a test to see if you are actually high. I'd presume that would have to be a blood test, although it might could be a saliva test, maybe.

The police will just drive you to Taco Bell. If you actually eat any of that shiat you will be immediately found guilty.


Well, I am screwed then. I like Taco Bell.

\and I don't even smoke
\\and I'm so white I glow in the dark
\maybe that's the Taco Bell
 
2010-08-27 08:37:05 PM  
dumpstertize: Yeah...note to self...when national legalization comes, buy stock in hostess...

...and in JOB, Zig Zag, Graffix, and Bic.
 
2010-08-27 08:37:21 PM  
It's small government's job to protect you from yourself and to tell you what you're allowed to put in your body. It's also small government's job to tell you who you're allowed to marry and where you can build your place of worship. People who try to violate the edicts of small government should be locked up in private prisons, which we'll pay for with tax cuts for the wealthy.

God bless Jesus!
 
2010-08-27 08:38:50 PM  
I see Conde Nast turning down ads
with the weed I love, and I'm like
"F**K YOU!"
sunsawed: OOO, OOO, OOOO!!!!!
 
2010-08-27 08:43:31 PM  
4chan Ambassador: NutWrench: For Farks sake, just legalize it.

I've never smoked pot in my life, but THIS. What people do to their bodies, harmful or harmless, shouldn't be the government's business. Remember that whole "small government" thingy, conservatives?


Um, let's not conflate conservatives and the freaky fundie brigade. I'm all for a small gov't and that includes the 'war on drugs'.
 
2010-08-27 08:44:11 PM  
The content on reddit is infinitely better than fark but the layout raped my dead dog
 
2010-08-27 08:44:58 PM  
That is so cool. Bring on November! If California pulls it off, I'm going to come visit just out of principle.
 
2010-08-27 08:45:35 PM  
I'm smoking pot right now so I'm really getting a...uh...whoa...hmm...You know...if the universe is really a multidimensional hologram...then...I'm going to make a bean burrito.
 
2010-08-27 08:47:31 PM  
radarlove: Oh it makes you stupid alright...but it makes you stupid in all the RIGHT ways, where you start questioning things. And THAT is why they really want to keep it illegal.

BZZZZT Nah. Sorry. Not buying that.
Well, maybe in moderation.
But all the wake-and-bake chronics I knew were as dumb as a box of rocks.

I think there's money to be made in keeping it illegal for the police, the prison guard's union, the prison construction contractors, the various government agencies-have you ever met a bureaucrat public or private who didn't want a bigger sphere of influence? that's just human nature.

The cancer of drug enforcement wants to grow-that's its' nature. And the more drug enforcement grows, the more resources it draws away from the harm-reduction model of drug-abuse prevention, not to mention a lot of other good things we could be spending money for.

So maybe we can keep this giant law-enforcement tumor from killing American society through legalization? I hope so.
 
2010-08-27 08:47:45 PM  
Rev. Skarekroe: When people start dying from reefer overdoses, we'll see who the real "hero" is.

Yer probably just joking, but the LD50 for marijuana inhalation is 42mg per kg of body weight, or smoking about 1500 lbs of marijuna in fifteen minutes.
 
2010-08-27 08:47:45 PM  
add me to the list of people wondering what good legalization will do when it can still get me fired for failing a piss test
 
2010-08-27 08:48:30 PM  
WTF is reddit? I just looked but still don't get it.
 
2010-08-27 08:49:47 PM  
Wolverines: The content layout on reddit is infinitely better than fark but the layout content raped my dead dog

FTFY

/reddit is the playground of high schoolers and college guys who have no real world experience - what they vote and comment as important makes me weep
 
2010-08-27 08:50:24 PM  
dumpstertize: The Angry Hand of God: The police will just drive you to Taco Bell. If you actually eat any of that shiat you will be immediately found guilty.

*snicker*

They could put you in the back of the cruiser with an open family-size box of twinkies...and just leave the camera recording...

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as you can see the defendant is cramming three twinkies into his mouth sideways...clearly he was stoned."

Yeah...note to self...when national legalization comes, buy stock in hostess...


GODDAMMIT, I want twinkies so bad now.
 
2010-08-27 08:51:37 PM  
raslinmike: add me to the list of people wondering what good legalization will do when it can still get me fired for failing a piss test

Who wants to work where you have to pee in a bottle anyways?
 
2010-08-27 08:52:49 PM  
shivashakti: Look, man, I just want a new rug

THIS
 
2010-08-27 08:53:24 PM  
The Angry Hand of God: The second that pot gets legalized I am buying 10,000 shares of Cheetos stock.

Noooo. Doritos. And cookie dough.

Not that I would know from personal experience or anything.

The meds I was taking to help me sleep at night were causing me to see trailing images. I told my mom that it was like tripping balls but without the fun. She laughed until she realized that my saying it had meant that I'd *done* it.

/ yes, Ma, I've experimented
// and had teh secks too!
 
2010-08-27 08:53:56 PM  
evilboyevil: Rev. Skarekroe: When people start dying from reefer overdoses, we'll see who the real "hero" is.

Yer probably just joking, but the LD50 for marijuana inhalation is 42mg per kg of body weight, or smoking about 1500 lbs of marijuna in fifteen minutes.


So, I would have to be covered in 3/4 of a ton of flaming weed for a quarter of an hour? I think the lack of oxygen would get me first.
 
2010-08-27 08:54:07 PM  
CruJones: WTF is reddit? I just looked but still don't get it.

It's like fark or more accurately Digg, I think...I've never actually been there I think.
 
2010-08-27 08:56:20 PM  
Slesfo: Why isn't Fark running Prop 19 ads?

Preaching to the choir?
 
2010-08-27 08:56:45 PM  
digitalrain: The Angry Hand of God: The second that pot gets legalized I am buying 10,000 shares of Cheetos stock.

Noooo. Doritos. And cookie dough.


...and....Funyuns...yeah.

www.mutantreviewers.com
 
2010-08-27 08:59:04 PM  
Yet another pot thread and no pot pictures. Tsk tsk tsk.

You Farkers are slippin...


i238.photobucket.com
 
2010-08-27 08:59:51 PM  
Bravo.
 
2010-08-27 09:00:01 PM  
evilboyevil: Rev. Skarekroe: When people start dying from reefer overdoses, we'll see who the real "hero" is.

Yer probably just joking, but the LD50 for marijuana inhalation is 42mg per kg of body weight, or smoking about 1500 lbs of marijuna in fifteen minutes.


So you're saying we'll need it in solution and then some kind of high speed dialysis machine?
 
2010-08-27 09:01:04 PM  
LittleSmitty: Yet another pot thread and no pot pictures. Tsk tsk tsk.

You Farkers are slippin...


"Oh, you're so powerful. And purple! Oh, I love purple."
 
2010-08-27 09:01:41 PM  
kidsizedcoffin: evilboyevil: Rev. Skarekroe: When people start dying from reefer overdoses, we'll see who the real "hero" is.

Yer probably just joking, but the LD50 for marijuana inhalation is 42mg per kg of body weight, or smoking about 1500 lbs of marijuna in fifteen minutes.

So you're saying we'll need it in solution and then some kind of high speed dialysis machine?


Dear sir, I would like to volunteer for this experiment.
 
2010-08-27 09:01:51 PM  
LittleSmitty: Yet another pot thread and no pot pictures. Tsk tsk tsk.

You Farkers are slippin...


Yep, that's a picture alright. Way to go.
 
2010-08-27 09:01:56 PM  
Retractable Weeners: I'll turn my adblock off if you run these ads, Drew.
 
2010-08-27 09:02:14 PM  
I approve
 
2010-08-27 09:15:23 PM  
gozar_the_destroyer: So, what happens when if it is decriminalized at the state level and not at the federal? Does Cali point out that the feds have told other states not to enforce federal laws before (i.e. Arizona) and then they don't arrest people for it? Or will the feds try and yank money from Cali since they are not enforcing it?

\not a troll, just wondering what the rest of fark thinks


It's current Department of Justice policy to not prosecute anybody who is following the medical marijuana laws of their state. As far as I'm aware, the policy does not extend to out-and-out legalization, which is essentially what Prop 19 proposes.

The current "drug czar" has come out strongly against Prop 19 in an LA Times op-ed, throwing about all sorts of fun statistics about marijuana use to support its continued prohibition (did you know that 8% of all drivers pulled over and tested on weekend nights have marijuana in there system? The op-ed doesn't explain the point of this stat). Also, the op-ed points to Amsterdam which has limited the number of pot coffeeshops to "hundreds," to limit "drug tourists" (which would be a problem for California how? A substantial proportion of its population are already "drug residents," who won't notice/care about more stoners wandering around).

As it is now, drug enforcement is mostly a state/local police concern with the feds focusing on the interstate gangs. The feds sometimes go after individual users/growers since they have jurisdiction to do so but usually just do it to make a point.

My guess: the feds will not like the passage of Prop 19. It would not surprise me if they use their considerable statutory arsenal -- up to and including RICO -- to go after those who grow/transport/sell marijuana legally under Prop 19. How Californians, the municipalities -- especially San Francisco, West Hollywood, Los Angeles, Berkeley, Oakland, Santa Cruz -- and the state government react to this will be interesting, to say the least. However, if other states follow California's lead and start legalizing, this portion of the Drug War at least will be lost. (Good riddance, I say.)
 
2010-08-27 09:16:16 PM  
Conde Nast tells Reddit they can't accept money for won't do pro-pot legalization ads, so they decide to sayReddit users say "Fark you", to the man and Conde Nast back peddles to save face with fans, runs them for free.

Fixed that for you, subby.
 
2010-08-27 09:17:48 PM  
NutWrench: For Farks sake, just legalize it.

img218.imageshack.us
 
2010-08-27 09:18:25 PM  
LittleSmitty: Yet another pot thread and no pot pictures. Tsk tsk tsk.

You Farkers are slippin...


Sweet bagel-toasting messiah!
 
2010-08-27 09:19:17 PM  
Ben Huh (I can has cheez burger) is wanting to buy Reddit from Conde Nast
Article (new window)
 
2010-08-27 09:21:49 PM  
coco ebert: Great, and I literally just ordered a subscription to the New Yorker and Vanity Fair off Conde Nast's website. *shakes fist*

Oh my god, this is the first time in five years I've seen someone say they read Vanity Fair, let alone subscribe to it.

/I'll give them this: VF was my first introduction to Christopher Hitchens, back when he was a warmongering bastard
 
2010-08-27 09:21:50 PM  
MaxxLarge (favorite) 2010-08-27 05:50:37 PM 4chan Ambassador: Remember that whole "small government" thingy, conservatives? They only remember it when it's convenient to their argument. Otherwise, it doesn't apply
======================================================

Pretty much.

Gay marriage, Marijuana, Prostitution, end of life issues, 'indecency' on tv, abortion... you know, anything that's socially liberal, they think the gov't should be in your face.
 
2010-08-27 09:22:37 PM  
bravian: /reddit is the playground of high schoolers and college guys who have no real world experience

Bullshiat! I've been a reader of reddit for years and a lurker of Fark for just as long. You'll learn a lot more from people there than here.
 
2010-08-27 09:25:04 PM  
Infobahn: Ben Huh (I can has cheez burger) is wanting to buy Reddit from Conde Nast
Article (new window)


Too lazy to read the article, but that makes much more sense.

I usually forget that Conde Nast owns Reddit, and then every time I'm reminded of the fact, I have the same "what is this I don't even" reaction. It doesn't make sense to me how this is advantageous for either entity.
 
2010-08-27 09:25:37 PM  
Infobahn: Ben Huh (I can has cheez burger) is wanting to buy Reddit from Conde Nast
Article (new window)


Huh?
Seriously, I always wonder why Reddit sold out to Conde Nast.

Reddit is one of the best communities around, and I don't see why they needed Conde Nast to get where they are today. If Huh can make it with his site, and be able to BUY Reddit FROM Conde Nast, you'd think Reddit could have been just as successful on it's own.

I guess when you're presented with lots of money, you'll be willing to sell your own baby.

/startup owner
//not sure if I would sell out or not
 
2010-08-27 09:28:14 PM  
Conde Nast probably doesn't care that they're running the ads, there's just something about profiting from the ads that will complicate things. Maybe a political thing with taxes and whatnot.
 
2010-08-27 09:29:11 PM  
The Southern Dandy: raslinmike: add me to the list of people wondering what good legalization will do when it can still get me fired for failing a piss test

Who wants to work where you have to pee in a bottle anyways?


People who want to make more than $10/hr and get employer-sponsored benefits, that's who.


/had to quit for work a few months ago and yes, it sucks
//I haven't had a drink in five years, kicked Crystal (yes, that one) and I don't react well to pills...throw me a frickin bone, here, society!
 
2010-08-27 09:31:59 PM  
digitalrain: The Angry Hand of God: The second that pot gets legalized I am buying 10,000 shares of Cheetos stock.

Noooo. Doritos. And cookie dough.


Cheetos and Doritos (and Funyuns) are all products of Frito-Lay, a subsidiary of Pepsico.

/Imma in ur thread, harshin ur mellow
 
2010-08-27 09:33:15 PM  
gozar_the_destroyer: So, what happens when if it is decriminalized at the state level and not at the federal? Does Cali point out that the feds have told other states not to enforce federal laws before (i.e. Arizona) and then they don't arrest people for it? Or will the feds try and yank money from Cali since they are not enforcing it?

\not a troll, just wondering what the rest of fark thinks


The Feds will do the same thing they did with drinking laws. Take money away from the state. For example, the Feds wanted the legal drinking age to be 21. Some states said that is stupid. You can send a person to war to kill and die at 18 but they can't have a dang beer? So the Feds said if your state min drinking age is not 21, then your state will not receive Federal highway funds. It went to the Supreme Court that was majority Republican at the time and the Feds won. That is why all states now have the 21 drinking age.

Not that long ago the drinking age was actually 18. Also, many states allowed younger if a parent/guardian was present. So a 15 year old could have a glass of wine with dinner with his family. Now, in most states, parents could be arrested for giving their OWN child one glass of wine for a special dinner/holiday/holy day/etc.
 
2010-08-27 09:33:35 PM  
Well, keep in mind that California legalizing it would probably not be the end of it.

SCOTUS already established that the Fed legislation IS Constitutional and still applies to all states.

I can't guarantee Obama would always be willing and able to block enforcement of ANY legalization measure. It is a major stretch of Executive Branch discretion.

And the federal laws are still there if the federal legislature does not repeal them. We could get a new POTUS in 3 more years who could just pick up the draconian laws again, without asking anyone- because, in fact, the laws ARE in place and there's a basic duty to enforce them.

It might be a state moving to legalize more drugs, or all of them. The fed can't use the excuse that "well, we kinda give it a miss if state laws allow it".

I'm just saying the avenue used is not "proper procedure". If it works, great, and will be an interesting case study in American history. But it's risky, and may set an uncomfortable precedent of ignoring federal laws that an individual state objects to.
 
2010-08-27 09:34:00 PM  
Never could understand why people visit reddit. It's such a hack interface. For all its faults, fark is far superior.
 
2010-08-27 09:34:13 PM  
dumpstertize: You see, in order to bust people for DWI on pot, once it's finally farking legal they are going to have to come up with a test to see if you are actually high. I'd presume that would have to be a blood test, although it might could be a saliva test, maybe.

Field test to prove diminished responsiveness and reflexes. Smell the weed, see the smoke, red eyes.

There doesn't need to be a blood test.
 
2010-08-27 09:35:10 PM  
dumpstertize: But all the wake-and-bake chronics I knew were as dumb as a box of rocks.

It sounds like you are strung out on motivated cognition and identity threat.
 
2010-08-27 09:36:29 PM  
Just a little schwag weed, please. One hit and I'm better than fine.

KB will erode your life.
 
2010-08-27 09:38:53 PM  
clovis69: There doesn't need to be a blood Fest.

fify
 
2010-08-27 09:40:04 PM  
clovis69: dumpstertize: You see, in order to bust people for DWI on pot, once it's finally farking legal they are going to have to come up with a test to see if you are actually high. I'd presume that would have to be a blood test, although it might could be a saliva test, maybe.

Field test to prove diminished responsiveness and reflexes. Smell the weed, see the smoke, red eyes.

There doesn't need to be a blood test.


I could pass any field sobriety test you could devise, all while being extremely stoned.
 
2010-08-27 09:40:57 PM  
Using RICO to combat prop 19. That made me laugh. I would love to see them go after a voting population. I have no idea how many will vote just thinking about the indictments makes me giggle.


/haven imbibed in decades
 
2010-08-27 09:45:24 PM  
img651.imageshack.us
 
2010-08-27 09:46:25 PM  
Brainsick: The Southern Dandy: raslinmike: add me to the list of people wondering what good legalization will do when it can still get me fired for failing a piss test

Who wants to work where you have to pee in a bottle anyways?

People who want to make more than $10/hr and get employer-sponsored benefits, that's who.


/had to quit for work a few months ago and yes, it sucks
//I haven't had a drink in five years, kicked Crystal (yes, that one) and I don't react well to pills...throw me a frickin bone, here, society!


Go into IT, quit long enough to pass the pre employment screen, and never be tested again. I love my work!
 
2010-08-27 09:54:07 PM  
silent sunday: Using RICO to combat prop 19. That made me laugh. I would love to see them go after a voting population. I have no idea how many will vote just thinking about the indictments makes me giggle.


/haven imbibed in decades


You haven't had anything to drink in decades? You must be thirsty as hell!
 
2010-08-27 09:58:15 PM  
You told us not to run the ads for the legal pot, and we're like, "fark you!" (Ooh Ooh Ooh)
 
2010-08-27 09:59:05 PM  
larrybrownsports.com

I was looking for a picture of that cute smoke shop chick from some thread a year or so ago, instead I found a picture of Joakim Noah of the Chicago Bulls buying a bong or something. Go figure.
 
2010-08-27 09:59:53 PM  
ThePastafarian: I'm one of the few who never smoked pot in his life, and I also agree.

/Yeah, I'm 32 and I've never smoked pot. I'm rare.


I smoked it before, but never my own. I wouldn't even know where to buy it or how to find a dealer without getting arrested by an undercover cop. Which is too bad, because I could use some relaxation.
 
2010-08-27 10:00:26 PM  
For all those asking why Drew doesn't run the ads, has the prop 19 organization tried to run the ads here? Even if they ask to, with Fark's tie-ins with ESPN/ABC and USA Today generating consistant revenue as opposed to a temporary state specific political ad, I would think it would be rejected. We can do links on the story as it definately is fark worthy, but the money and corporate tie-ins are not worth jeopordizing mainstream relationships that might not want to be associated with the measure. Fark is a business and has conduct itself as such in many respects.

Hell prop 19 probably would be wise in using the limited funding to reach a more important demographic of voters. Most Farkers are not also Californians so their opinion on the proposition does not matter (unless they are donating to it and those individuals probably know about it anyway). Prop 19 doesn't have very much cash so it needs to use the funds it has in targeted ways in state.
 
2010-08-27 10:02:56 PM  
Brainsick: The Southern Dandy: raslinmike: add me to the list of people wondering what good legalization will do when it can still get me fired for failing a piss test

Who wants to work where you have to pee in a bottle anyways?

People who want to make more than $10/hr and get employer-sponsored benefits, that's who.


/had to quit for work a few months ago and yes, it sucks
//I haven't had a drink in five years, kicked Crystal (yes, that one) and I don't react well to pills...throw me a frickin bone, here, society!


Get a job with an advertising agency or any other industry that hires "creative" people. I got hired and went to Amsterdam 2 weeks later (the trip was already planned). No one even spoke about a possible drug test.
 
2010-08-27 10:03:03 PM  
Jim4Prez: The Feds will do the same thing they did with drinking laws. Take money away from the state. For example, the Feds wanted the legal drinking age to be 21. Some states said that is stupid. You can send a person to war to kill and die at 18 but they can't have a dang beer? So the Feds said if your state min drinking age is not 21, then your state will not receive Federal highway funds

Pretty much what i expect if it happens, bye bye highway funds (testing for usage for DWHigh being the reason) is what I would foresee being obvious

California will have a tough time responding to that though if it happens, their ballot initiative system is pretty unique. It would surely be challenged in court if successful but the state courts have been pretty easy on most initiative votes letting em go as is historically.

If nothing else it's interesting to watch
 
2010-08-27 10:03:21 PM  
Tickle Mittens: I see Conde Nast turning down ads
with the weed I love, and I'm like
"F**K YOU!"
sunsawed: OOO, OOO, OOOO!!!!!


Damnit, didn't see this before posting my wholly original Cee-lo parody. Great minds, maybe?
 
2010-08-27 10:04:11 PM  
dumpstertize: Here's a question for y'all-

If they legalize marijuana...not just CA but the country, do you think employers are going to still fire employees for using?

You see, in order to bust people for DWI on pot, once it's finally farking legal they are going to have to come up with a test to see if you are actually high. I'd presume that would have to be a blood test, although it might could be a saliva test, maybe.

But employers and insurers will still go for the cheap urine test for post employee-injury testing untill they get sued and lose.
Of course, a pee test doesn't show whether you were high at the time of the accident at all, it just shows there's THC metabolites in your pee.

I'm not going to consider the very occasional recreational magic brownie until I can't get fired either.

And it's a stupid, stupid thing. Even the most obnoxious, irresponsible chronic is no match for an alky on the booze in terms of belligerence and danger to people, including behind the wheel of a car.
Not that anyone should operate anything more complicated than a stereo or dvd player while stoned. For crying out loud, sit back and enjoy melting into the couch. Have some food. Put on something spacy.


I am a work comp/safety manager for a company that just revised its drug policy to exclude termination for THC positive drug test; either post injury or random. We are a small staff, only about 55-60 of us with most of us having been there 10 years or more. We know who smokes and we know who doesn't and we just ask that they keep it away from work.

Can we prove they were not high? No, but we decided to take that risk because what people do when they are not at work is not hurting us. We respect their lifestyles and ask them to put in an honest 40 hours. So far so good.

Yeah this would not work for many companies but it does for us.

/I know, cool story bro
 
2010-08-27 10:13:49 PM  
Go Nullification.

www.thomasewoods.com
Great book.

California, you may be wrong on 99% of things, but I hope Prop 19 passes.
 
2010-08-27 10:14:30 PM  
You won't start seeing ads for another few weeks. Its too far before the election. Expect the ads to start ramping up, oh, around October 1 or so.

Right now even people who haven't smoked a joint in their life would forget the ads if they ran them right now come November :)
 
2010-08-27 10:17:46 PM  
dumpstertize: do you think employers are going to still fire employees for using?

They can fire employees simply for smoking cigarettes*, they can damn sure fire them for smoking pot. Any of my employees test positive, they're gone, I can't afford the liability issues that would arise if I turned a blind eye to it.

*on their own time away from work and not in any way connected to anything to do with work.
 
2010-08-27 10:23:11 PM  
Montana, DaJesus, thanks for the suggestions


I DO have experience writing copy for radio...hmmm...
 
2010-08-27 10:24:11 PM  
LittleSmitty: Yet another pot thread and no pot pictures. Tsk tsk tsk.

You Farkers are slippin...


www.1-costaricalink.com

Pot pictures?
 
2010-08-27 10:25:16 PM  
media.giantbomb.com

likes this ...
 
2010-08-27 10:32:48 PM  
I hope this passes...so much more benefits to legalize it. I have been several times to Amsterdam and it does not look like a crime ridden city to me.

Going to jail for smoking a plant is just silly
 
2010-08-27 10:35:35 PM  
RockofAges: I wouldn't work for any jerkass that wanted to search my body for cannabinoids in any case. You should be worried about the tweakers and the alcoholics you have on staff that pass piss-tests with impunity.

Cool, don't take a job where you have to drive for somebody else. Maybe when you grow up you'll realize that your actions have effect upon other people, and that those people have a right to a say when such a situation exists. And showing up to work drunk will get you fired just as fast, as will any drinking then driving one of my vehicles. Like I said, I can't afford the liability involved in allowing something like drinking or being high to go on then letting them behind the wheel of a vehicle I own. Luckily, I hire adults who understand that, and not children who can't.
 
2010-08-27 10:35:54 PM  
What's the point of legalizing it? Employers still have the right to drug test and terminate you for a positive drug screen. I guess it's a cool deal if you plan on being a bum for the rest of your life.
 
2010-08-27 10:38:20 PM  
Wolverines: What's the point of legalizing it? Employers still have the right to drug test and terminate you for a positive drug screen. I guess it's a cool deal if you plan on being a bum for the rest of your life.

Do you actually have any work experience? Not every employer drug tests. Mine doesn't.
 
2010-08-27 10:38:22 PM  
Wolverines: What's the point of legalizing it? Employers still have the right to drug test and terminate you for a positive drug screen. I guess it's a cool deal if you plan on being a bum for the rest of your life.

2/10
 
2010-08-27 10:41:16 PM  
Don't know that I'd partake on a regular basis, but it sure would be nice to be able to make a nice batch of special brownies to take the edge off of a rough day.

Florida will no doubt be one of the last hold-outs on the legalization issue, though.

/ remembers baking two batches of brownies at a time as a kid - one for me, and the special ones for Dad and his friends...
 
2010-08-27 10:43:09 PM  
jack21221: Do you actually have any work experience? Not every employer drug tests. Mine doesn't.

The large majority of employers do.
 
2010-08-27 10:43:44 PM  
Oh and if it gets legalized, more employers will.
 
2010-08-27 10:44:35 PM  
miltonbabbitt: img651.imageshack.us

Those all look about right except are cigs really that intoxicating? (also I thought I had seen caffine/pot scoring a bit closer to each other)
 
2010-08-27 10:49:11 PM  
coco ebert: Great, and I literally just ordered a subscription to the New Yorker and Vanity Fair off Conde Nast's website. *shakes fist*

New Yorker and Vanity Fair? How you doing?
 
2010-08-27 10:54:19 PM  
Wolverines: Oh and if it gets legalized, more employers will.

lulz and if you turn up negative you don't get hired.
 
2010-08-27 10:55:32 PM  
Montana Wildhack: Go into IT, quit long enough to pass the pre employment screen, and never be tested again. I love my work!

HAH. That's what I thought, too... then I got fired because of a failed drug test.

/it's in their right...
 
2010-08-27 11:00:50 PM  
Make a list of the top 1000 employers in the US and I guarantee that 99% or more drug test. The fact that a handful of you have a job where they don't doesn't make it widespread.
 
2010-08-27 11:04:54 PM  
Wolverines: Make a list of the top 1000 employers in the US and I guarantee that 99% or more drug test. The fact that a handful of you have a job where they don't doesn't make it widespread.

Go ahead and make up that list and back it up with facts on which companies drug-tests, then present it to the class. You seem really eager to make that point but aren't willing to put in the work to do so. You must be a lazy non drug user.
 
2010-08-27 11:20:11 PM  
As a former 19-year stoner, with years of surfacing to gasp for breaths of professional employment (and succeeding most of the time)...I'd laugh in the face of any drug-test-flunker presented before me.

You think your ideas are much better than they actually are. You're lethargic, even though you think you're spry. You stink, and clip your toenails as proof. Your math is back to HS levels (for even grad students), and your spelling is like a 4th grader.

Legalize it? No.
First-time offender pass? YES.
 
2010-08-27 11:20:58 PM  
So you want 'em to legalize pot, huh hippie? Well, come over here, I got somethin' to tell ya.

Think about how expensive tobacco cigarettes are in your neck of the woods. Most of that is taxes, which have been jacked up like a motherfarker in the last 10 years or so, because your state isn't making any tax revenue anymore, now that all the jobs been shipped overseas. Your state's broke off its ass, just like you are.

You with me, hippie? Pay attention here.

"If they legalize reefer, they'll be able to make up their budget defecits with taxes," you say? Be careful what you wish for, hippie. If they legalize dope, the taxes on it will be twice those on tobacco, maybe 3x as much. Because by Gawd if they've got a new sin tax, they're gonna jack that farker up with impunity. Plus they have to pay for the local sports team's new stadium somehow. They can't keep cutting school budgets, because the 9 vice-superintendants per county need to have their annual raises. 60 kids per classroom seems to be about the limit, and they fired all the music teachers years ago.

You wanna pay 75 bucks for a little bit of grass, hippie? Well, do ya? Because a carton of smokes is well over 50 most places. So yeah, march for legalization. That's a great farkin' idea.

Not that you're going to remember to vote anyway.

Enjoy that Phish concert, tho'.

And wash your hair.

Hippie.
 
2010-08-27 11:23:08 PM  
This weed is awesome!
 
2010-08-27 11:24:30 PM  
Civil_War2_Time: As a former 19-year stoner, with years of surfacing to gasp for breaths of professional employment (and succeeding most of the time)...I'd laugh in the face of any drug-test-flunker presented before me.

You think your ideas are much better than they actually are. You're lethargic, even though you think you're spry. You stink, and clip your toenails as proof. Your math is back to HS levels (for even grad students), and your spelling is like a 4th grader.

Legalize it? No.
First-time offender pass? YES.


The only people who are against the legalization of drugs are the people who have never done drugs and the people who really sucked at doing drugs. I definitely think you qualify as the latter.
 
2010-08-27 11:24:58 PM  
KelvinTheClown: You wanna pay 75 bucks for a little bit of grass, hippie? Well, do ya?

Already pay that for an 8th around here. What's your point?

/Yeah I know, prices kinda suck here.
//Don't smoke cigs, so the rest of your post is pointless to me.
 
2010-08-27 11:28:01 PM  
Wolverines: Make a list of the top 1000 employers in the US and I guarantee that 99% or more drug test. The fact that a handful of you have a job where they don't doesn't make it widespread.

??????

Drug testing is only for blue collar jobs.

/I think you must have been smoking something.
 
2010-08-27 11:33:20 PM  
valingnor: KelvinTheClown: You wanna pay 75 bucks for a little bit of grass, hippie? Well, do ya?

Already pay that for an 8th around here. What's your point?



Further research has shown me that a "Dime Bag" does not, as I earlier believed, cost one dime. I was misinformed.
 
2010-08-27 11:40:11 PM  
ThePastafarian: 4chan Ambassador: NutWrench: For Farks sake, just legalize it.

I've never smoked pot in my life, but THIS. What people do to their bodies, harmful or harmless, shouldn't be the government's business. Remember that whole "small government" thingy, conservatives?

I'm one of the few who never smoked pot in his life, and I also agree.

/Yeah, I'm 32 and I've never smoked pot. I'm rare.


I'm 38, have never smoked pot, and never will. And I am 100% in favor of legalization.
 
2010-08-27 11:59:38 PM  
ParaHandy: Drug testing is only for blue collar jobs.

i37.tinypic.com
 
2010-08-28 12:03:00 AM  
shivashakti: Look, man, I just want a new rug.


Yeah, well, I want a new duck
 
2010-08-28 12:06:37 AM  
How Weed Won the West (2010) (new window)

A must watch for both non-users and users.
 
2010-08-28 12:09:18 AM  
You can't OD on it. You can get killed by the eventual cancer.

So, what's the problem?
 
2010-08-28 12:09:25 AM  
dumpstertize: Not that anyone should operate anything more complicated than a stereo or dvd player while stoned. For crying out loud, sit back and enjoy melting into the couch. Have some food. Put on something spacy.


Take some vitamin B-complex, C-complex, if you have a beer, go ahead and drink it...do you have any Allman Brothers?

/It's gonna be ok, right Jimmy?
 
2010-08-28 12:15:30 AM  
Yaxe: You can't OD on it. You can get killed by the eventual cancer.

Vaporize or cook with it and every single health risk associated with cannabis goes away.
 
2010-08-28 12:18:40 AM  
gozar_the_destroyer: and I'm so white I glow in the dark

www.cleverbadger.net
 
2010-08-28 12:20:07 AM  
dstanley: Retractable Weeners: I'll turn my adblock off if you run these ads, Drew.

Ditto.
 
2010-08-28 12:28:16 AM  
KelvinTheClown: Further research has shown me that a "Dime Bag" does not, as I earlier believed, cost one dime. I was misinformed.

I wonder if one nark could all the way through [drug enforcement] school and not know that 'shiat' means, 'shiat!' He might. Sure be in for a lot of surprises the first day on the job, though. Some guy would roll up to him: 'Hey, you wanna buy some shiat?' 'Well, I'd never thought about it really. Where'd you get the shiat?' You know, try to draw him out, find out the identity of Mr. Big, right? 'Well, we brought it back from Cambodia in a guitar, man, and we, um, made brownies out of some of it, and gave some away as a wedding present, and we're selling the rest, man.' 'Hmm...sounds like some sort of a religious cult. How much is the shiat?' 'Well, I'll let you have two ounces for ninety dollars, man.' 'Must be...good shiat!' 'Yeah, it is, man. Think you want some papers with that?' 'Yes-better let me have a roll or two, will you?'
 
2010-08-28 12:35:05 AM  
jpmeyer: Reddit is completely unusable today. I had to scroll through about 10 pages or so before I got to content that wasn't people spamming that ad.

I just departed digg for reddit. TBH i think it was a good choice considering digg's latest turn.

/csb
/you'll get over it
 
2010-08-28 12:37:23 AM  
WALMART.saves: Montana Wildhack: Go into IT, quit long enough to pass the pre employment screen, and never be tested again. I love my work!

HAH. That's what I thought, too... then I got fired because of a failed drug test.

/it's in their right...


Well, sorry to hear that, it's been 15 years since I started here, and they haven't re-tested me yet. Guess I better keep my fingers crossed......
 
2010-08-28 01:12:11 AM  
Montana Wildhack: Well, sorry to hear that, it's been 15 years since I started here, and they haven't re-tested me yet. Guess I better keep my fingers crossed......

You Americans are crazy putting up with that shiat. I had no idea they could drug test everyone down there until the Canadian company I work for got bought out by an American company. Dumbasses thought they could drug test us up here in Canada. Yeah didn't happen...that shiat is against the law up here. Rather than whining about all the bullshiat you guys whine about maybe you should turn your energy on that insane violation of your personal rights and privacy that they call drug testing.

There isn't even any logic behind it because you fail if you smoked weed in the last 3 weeks. WTF does that have to do with being high during your shift? What you do on your personal time is none of their damn business!

Thank Jeebus my parents moved our family to Canada right before I was born.
 
2010-08-28 01:25:55 AM  
I'm a fan of both Reddit and Fark (Digg can suck it). Reddit has one thing going for it: Downvotes.

If the trolls in the politics tab migrated to Reddit, they would NEVER be seen. Imagine a world without Phil Herups, or NYZooMans, or Skinnyheads, or Bevets...

Imagine...
 
2010-08-28 01:30:40 AM  
Red_Fox: There isn't even any logic behind it because you fail if you smoked weed in the last 3 weeks. WTF does that have to do with being high during your shift? What you do on your personal time is none of their damn business!

This. That's why I'm for legalization and against drug testing-and I'm actually given to understand you can test positive for up to a month.

I also think an employer ought to be limited to doing a test that at least semi-accurately determines if you were impaired when you were at work.

But yeah-I know Academy(the sporting-goods store) refuses to hire people who smoke or use tobacco products.

As far as taxing the crap out of weed? I'd rather it go to fund drug rehabs than Mexican gangs, vato.
 
2010-08-28 01:46:59 AM  
dumpstertize: Red_Fox: There isn't even any logic behind it because you fail if you smoked weed in the last 3 weeks. WTF does that have to do with being high during your shift? What you do on your personal time is none of their damn business!

This. That's why I'm for legalization and against drug testing-and I'm actually given to understand you can test positive for up to a month.

I also think an employer ought to be limited to doing a test that at least semi-accurately determines if you were impaired when you were at work.

But yeah-I know Academy(the sporting-goods store) refuses to hire people who smoke or use tobacco products.

As far as taxing the crap out of weed? I'd rather it go to fund drug rehabs than Mexican gangs, vato.


Month- it is actually worse than that. The chemical they test for is stored in the fatty tissues. You can lose 10 pounds from the flu and be flaming positive a year after you quit.

That being said, there are formulas to show the postive test was from old residual but nobody is going to get that fancy- they'll just fire your ass.
 
2010-08-28 02:07:42 AM  
AmazingRuss: ninjakirby: Living in the Bay Area, it's almost culture shock to discover people to which this is an issue. Course I said the same thing about SSM in CA and we saw how Prop8 turned out.

You think the Mormons are behind this too?


Actually, as a Mormon, I can tell you for a fact they are.

I spent last weekend at an LDS church function - the function was a barbecue and pistol/shotgun shoot, with church supplied guns and ammo. They were teaching the kids how to do combat style shooting. Also, to fear the FBI among other things.

They have radicalized a lot, and there are a lot of Palinbots among their ranks now. They have started to do a lot of work with and identify with groups like Focus on the Family and the "Quiverfull" movement (Quiverfull is the group the Duggars belong to. Part of the groups effort to have large families is to 1) "repopulate the white race", and 2) to get enough votes to put Theocrats in power and dispense with Democracy, as they claim it is incompatible with Christianity. Nice people, huh? Also, death penalty for lying about virginity status, and for not being a virgin. Very Taliban of them.) These are the groups LDS is allying with.

The LDS are starting to mobilize a lot of support behind a number of Anti-gay, anti-gambling, anti-alcohol, and anti-pot causes, with special targeted video messages from the "Prophet" himself shown to member churches in areas with current political efforts to ban or restrict any of those things.

Glenn Beck is a devout Mormon, and not too far a reach into crazy from the average Mormon nowadays. They used to be a lot more chill and hiding in the social woodwork, now they are flexing their muscles, they are starting to scare me a lot.
 
2010-08-28 02:15:54 AM  
stonicus: dumpstertize: Yeah...note to self...when national
...and in JOB, Zig Zag, Graffix, and Bic.


Not so much Zig Zag. Tobacco companies are going to be falling over themselves to start selling prerolled cigs when it's truly legal. (I dunno, maybe Zig Zag will do the same.)
 
2010-08-28 02:18:14 AM  
gozar_the_destroyer: So, what happens when if it is decriminalized at the state level and not at the federal? Does Cali point out that the feds have told other states not to enforce federal laws before (i.e. Arizona) and then they don't arrest people for it? Or will the feds try and yank money from Cali since they are not enforcing it?

\not a troll, just wondering what the rest of fark thinks


About 35 years ago, before George Moscone was elected Mayor of San Francisco and executed by Officer Dan White, he was responsible for effectively decriminalizing possession of less than an ounce.

The Feds certainly haven't started prosecuting every Californian caught with a joint since then. However, somehow, people still seem to end up in state prison for possession even though H&S 11357 says the maximum penalty is $100 and they can't even book you if you sign a promise to appear.

I expect that California LEOs will be happy to keep arresting people for a joint even if it goes from decriminalized to legal, just like they arrested people for officiating same-sex marriages during the brief pre-Prop 8 period when it was legal.
 
2010-08-28 02:41:56 AM  
ChubbyTiger: 4chan Ambassador: NutWrench: For Farks sake, just legalize it.

I've never smoked pot in my life, but THIS. What people do to their bodies, harmful or harmless, shouldn't be the government's business. Remember that whole "small government" thingy, conservatives?

Um, let's not conflate conservatives and the freaky fundie brigade. I'm all for a small gov't and that includes the 'war on drugs'.


Sorry, dude, Reagan already conflated them. It's a little too late now.
 
2010-08-28 02:56:05 AM  
kidsizedcoffin: stonicus: Rev. Skarekroe: When people start dying from reefer overdoses, we'll see who the real "hero" is.

Except for the fact it is physically impossible to smoke enough weed to OD on, you're right.

This sounds like it needs some scientific data for a peer-review study. I say we get a couple pounds of pot, a few vaporizers, some Doritos, and make a weekend of it. Now we just need volunteers for the control group.


Eh, if you are supplying a weekends worth of Doritos, I'll volunteer for the control group :D
 
2010-08-28 03:16:21 AM  
DaJesus: Get a job with an advertising agency or any other industry that hires "creative" people. I got hired and went to Amsterdam 2 weeks later (the trip was already planned). No one even spoke about a possible drug test.

Damn straight. One of the many great things I've taken for granted about working in a creative industry is that studios (even the big corporate ones) don't bother with that nonsense. Nobody cares how you do your work, when you do your work, what you wear or what's in your system as you get shiat done.

/Apparently my union has pretty awesome rehab coverage.
 
2010-08-28 04:16:32 AM  
4chan Ambassador: NutWrench: For Farks sake, just legalize it.

I've never smoked pot in my life, but THIS. What people do to their bodies, harmful or harmless, shouldn't be the government's business. Remember that whole "small government" thingy, conservatives?


I'm totally thinking this is a troll because of your name, if so Bravo, but if not...You're a farking moron.

The reason it should be the Government's business is that it inevitibly becomes society's problem at large when the destructive behavior of a human being creates a burdon of care which must be fufilled by society, or harms others.

According to this logic, it's cool if tell cancer patients that chemotherapy is murder, and they'll get better if they take my magical elixer instead, or as a Doctor I prescribe Thallidomide to pregnant women - because hey, it does cure their nausea, after all!

I'm a liberal, and I think pot should be legalized, but that arguement is a total oversimplification of a complex issue.
 
2010-08-28 04:20:41 AM  
Mayhem_2006: kidsizedcoffin: stonicus: Rev. Skarekroe: When people start dying from reefer overdoses, we'll see who the real "hero" is.

Except for the fact it is physically impossible to smoke enough weed to OD on, you're right.

This sounds like it needs some scientific data for a peer-review study. I say we get a couple pounds of pot, a few vaporizers, some Doritos, and make a weekend of it. Now we just need volunteers for the control group.

Eh, if you are supplying a weekends worth of Doritos, I'll volunteer for the control group :D


Well, technically you're wrong. A small (
Also, you don't want to let your local schitzophrenic smoke'm peace pipe - tends to lead to bad things.
 
2010-08-28 04:23:15 AM  
hardinparamedic: Mayhem_2006: kidsizedcoffin: stonicus: Rev. Skarekroe: When people start dying from reefer overdoses, we'll see who the real "hero" is.

Except for the fact it is physically impossible to smoke enough weed to OD on, you're right.

This sounds like it needs some scientific data for a peer-review study. I say we get a couple pounds of pot, a few vaporizers, some Doritos, and make a weekend of it. Now we just need volunteers for the control group.

Eh, if you are supplying a weekends worth of Doritos, I'll volunteer for the control group :D

Well, technically you're wrong. A small (
Also, you don't want to let your local schitzophrenic smoke'm peace pipe - tends to lead to bad things.


Motherfarker.

Well, technically that's wrong. A small (

Pot's like any other medication out there - it's not 100% safe with no side effects.
Damn post being cut off.
 
2010-08-28 04:46:54 AM  
CliChe Guevara: Glenn Beck is a devout Mormon, and not too far a reach into crazy from the average Mormon nowadays. They used to be a lot more chill and hiding in the social woodwork, now they are flexing their muscles, they are starting to scare me a lot.

Oh hell, J.Smith himself "prophecied" about the eventual overthrow of the us Govt at the hands of Mormons. They've just been playing the slow game.
 
2010-08-28 05:48:08 AM  
I just saw both Reefer Madness Rifftrax Live events, so I'm getting a kick out of...
 
2010-08-28 07:36:21 AM  
4chan Ambassador: NutWrench: For Farks sake, just legalize it.

I've never smoked pot in my life, but THIS. What people do to their bodies, harmful or harmless, shouldn't be the government's business. Remember that whole "small government" thingy, conservatives?


Yeah, that's the problem, though.

The same hypocrisy about conservatives not wanting to legalize weed comes from the liberals who do want to legalize it. Liberals are in favor of a large government influencing our behavior... Except when they disagree with the behavior the government favors. Conservatives want a small government which leaves us alone, except when left alone we do things they disagree with.

Yes, conservatives should be all about keeping the government out of making moral choices. Liberals should be okay with it.

News flash: No political ideology is consistent.
 
2010-08-28 09:11:28 AM  
RockOfAges

Ooh, Liberterian philosophy. This will be FUN!

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."

So, you're basically saying we should let anyone do what ever they want, because it's their choice so society isn't hurt by the consequences of their decisions on both a legal, socioeconomic, and medical front?

Translation of this arguement: WHARGARBLDERPDURRLIBERTARIANISMDERP

"He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

Thanks for bolding that last part - it basically disproves the arguement you're trying to make here. In a modern society, no man is an island - the choices that this person makes will, either directly or indirectly, affect others. Take, for example, amphetamines, since we're on the topic of them. Abuse of amphetamines, both legally procured through prescription drug abuse, and illegally obtained through clanlab production and theft, cause direct socioeconomic burdons based on the users choices. Methamphetamine production is highly toxic, not only damaging the environment, the individual engaging in it, and anyone in close proximity to that person, but anyone within a 300 foot radius of the cook-site. Methamphetmines are a powerfully, physiologically addictive (You do know the difference, right?) substance that causes massive pathological changes to the human body - including the development of cardiovascular failure and dementia - which places that individual's care as a burdon on society.

Please note that you cannot try to harness "future harm" or "possible harm" onto this statement, as this is pure speculation or conjecture about things in that have not transpired yet. You are left with "direct harm", a concept known quite well to anyone who has studied natural law - and smoking cannabis causes absolutely zero "direct harm" to any other individual, and thus is the sovereign individual's choice.


OOH! Naturalistic Fallacy combined with a healthy dose of strawman arguement! I love it! Except - you're attempting to convince people that the usage of a pharmacologic agent such as marijuana is riskless, which, it's not.

Further, if you place some mystical "harm" to others in the smoking of cannabis smoke, you would have to logically place every and all other ingested materials under the same scrutiny. Aspirin kills thousands of individuals per year, and causes their families great "harm". Cheeseburgers cause obesity to such a great degree that millions die. Pharmaceutical psychoactives cause so many traffic accidents, domestic disputes, and cases of addiction that they should be criminalized, obviously, since pot is. Alcohol? Let's not even go to the harm visited upon others due to the ingestion of that drug. Tobacco? Tobacco smoke has been proven to exacerbate the risk of lung cancer. Cannabis smoke (see: Dr. Donald Tashkin, UCLA) has actually indicated zero predilection in the largest independent case-controlled study of all time to NOT produce head / neck / throat cancers.


Again, igniting a field of strawmen, I see. Asprin is a well researched subtance, as in Marijuana, that is relatively safe given the conditions it treats compared with its side effect profile. Intentional overdose or misuse of any substance can result in death - again - a strawman. Cheeseburgers, yeah - they do cause cardiovascular disease - but so does inactivity, predisposing genetic code, and a million other variables. Pharmaceutical psychoactives are regulated by legal codes reguarding their use, prescription, and a driver under the influence of them is held legally responsable for his or her actions - the abuse of which IS criminalized and the distribution of which is highly regulated due to the mind altering and addictive nature of these medications, but again - nice strawman. Alcohol has risks of which the public is very much informed about, people still choose to use it - and again, there are laws in place regarding the abuse of this substance. Tobacco is the same. Actually, Tobacco smoke is proven to be the #1 cause of lung cancer in the developed world today, if you want to get technical - and I actually looked up the study you listed - and the proposed mechanism is because THC IS NOT NICOTINE. Bravo, though.

If anyone is genuinely interested, I've produced a larger research paper on the moral "integrity" of cannabis prohibition, "Individual Rights, State Wrongs: Pot, Propaganda, and Prohibition" that I'll e-mail to any willing scrutineers.

So basically you wrote this huge, useless rant about what I stated, just to promote your original research paper. Wow. Awesome. Only one problem with this:

None of my posts have been in support of the prohibition of medicinal or recreational pot. The posts I made were in regards to an illogical and stupid remark about blanket legalization of all addictive and damaging substances without even subjecting recreational medicines to the same loose restrictions we force "dietary supplements" to adhere to. Had you actually used your reading comprehension skills and read anything I posted, you might have understood my point was that allowing blanket usage of harmful substances whos comparative pharmacologic agents with actual medicinal usages are heavily restricted by law due to the potential for harm, was a foolish decision. Instead, you chose to post an entire liberterian philisophical rant with no relevance to anything I discussed, and atempt to use it as a publicity soapbox for your original research.

Classy.

/hooked on phonix worked for me.
 
2010-08-28 09:16:53 AM  
lenfromak: While I'm here, screw Facebook too, for refusing the Libertarian Party's legalization ads.

Quick suggestion, ask Drew. He allows all kinds of farked up political ads to ruin his site.
 
2010-08-28 09:34:21 AM  
ParaHandy: Drug testing is only for blue collar jobs.

Federal government jobs drug test. I know that at least some require hair tests.
 
2010-08-28 11:24:06 AM  
fenianfark: ParaHandy: Drug testing is only for blue collar jobs.

Federal government jobs drug test. I know that at least some require hair tests.


State of Tennessee requires ANY medical professional to pass an initial drug test and background screen (any felonies/misderminors other than a speeding ticket mean its neigh-impossible to get a license) before they're granted entry into a program, every so often during the program, and before licensure is granted. My hospital does random drug checks on those with narcotics access, and at any time the Rescue Squad can call me and say report to the jail for a random drug screen.

AFAIK, only jobs that require Classified, Secret, TS, and TS-CI clearance require the hair test. I might be wrong.
 
2010-08-28 11:31:13 AM  
Now that the pervasive drug culture types have matured and are in charge of stuff, perhaps we can move on to more important things like getting the farking kids off my lawn, dammit!
 
2010-08-28 01:59:38 PM  
Slesfo: Why isn't Fark running Prop 19 ads?

Because Google, that's why.
Gotta be "Family Friendly" or the advertisers will get all pissy.
srsly. That's why boobies aren't on the main page any more and are hidden away in the dark recesses of the basement server.
 
2010-08-28 02:09:05 PM  
raslinmike: add me to the list of people wondering what good legalization will do when it can still get me fired for failing a piss test

And add you to the list of people who can't tell the difference between getting fired and going to jail.
 
2010-08-28 02:17:54 PM  
Wolverines: jack21221: Do you actually have any work experience? Not every employer drug tests. Mine doesn't.

The large majority of employers do.


Low wage jobs, maybe. Businesses that need skilled employees can't be rejecting a large chunk of potential employees because of a mostly harmless off work activity. Thus software engineers are not usually tested, whereas burger flippers usually are. You've just identified yourself as a dead-ender.
 
2010-08-28 04:09:57 PM  
LittleSmitty: Yet another pot thread and no pot pictures. Tsk tsk tsk.

You Farkers are slippin...


Here, have one of mine:

i.imgur.com
 
2010-08-28 04:11:21 PM  
knobmaker: Wolverines: jack21221: Do you actually have any work experience? Not every employer drug tests. Mine doesn't.

The large majority of employers do.

Low wage jobs, maybe. Businesses that need skilled employees can't be rejecting a large chunk of potential employees because of a mostly harmless off work activity. Thus software engineers are not usually tested, whereas burger flippers usually are. You've just identified yourself as a dead-ender.


This is pretty much true. I failed my application DT at a HUGE laptop repair place, but I had such mad repair skills compared to every other applicant that they just ignored it 100% and let me right in.
 
2010-08-28 10:09:38 PM  
RockOfAges

Thanks for proving my point.

You'd rather attempt to inject a liberterian philosophy attempting to distill a complex psychosocial and medical issue into an arguement that is, at it's a core, complex and multifactoral. The issue of drug use and legalization is not as cut and dry a personal freedom issue as you try to make it, and ignores not only the factor of human nature, but the ideals of the social contract we enter in our republic that the Government has a distinct responability to protect society and the individual from their poor choices when those choices are influenced not by free will, but by a powerful physiological desire for the substance.

Also, you attempted to change the subject to one that was not even being discussed. While I do appreciate you admitting that MJ is NOT fully harmless, even though it is relatively safe in most of the population, again, you're confusing the issue I'm discussing here. Also, as a healthcare professional, I tend to get a little mad when my profession's science is used to legalize a substance for "medicinal" uses, when the prevailing motive for doing so is in realtiy for "recreational" uses.

Rather, you want to inject semantics and original reseach papers into the mix, which a collegate scholar would definately call you on, and also you want to call the "Tu quoquo" card after I called you for using Strawman arguements. Quite circular.
 
2010-08-29 10:30:12 PM  
hardinparamedic: the Government has a distinct responability to protect society and the individual from their poor choices when those choices are influenced not by free will, but by a powerful physiological desire for the substance.


This is why we can't have nice things.

/Where in the Constitution does it say all that shiat?
//That's just, like, your opinion, man.
///Should the government protect straight men from titties and beer too? Cos free will isn't stopping them.
 
2010-08-30 11:30:39 AM  
hardinparamedic: Government has a distinct responability to protect society and the individual from their poor choices when those choices are influenced not by free will, but by a powerful physiological desire for the substance.

Except that study after study after study has shown that there is absolutely no physical addiction associated with marijuana usage. In other words, it's as addictive as gambling, gaming, or skydiving, and actually less addictive than caffeine. Do you care to outlaw all those things as well, because of the "powerful psychological desire" involved?
 
2010-08-30 12:16:30 PM  
hardinparamedic: Also, as a healthcare professional, I tend to get a little mad when my profession's science is used to legalize a substance for "medicinal" uses, when the prevailing motive for doing so is in realtiy for "recreational" uses.

BTW, I love this logic too. Let's deprive people of a proven effective medicine because somebody might want to use it recreationally. If we used that logic, everything from Vicodin to NyQuil would be illegal.
 
Displayed 189 of 189 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report