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.

(The New York Times)   New York State Supreme Court Justice, suffering from pancreatic cancer, begs state legislature to legalize medical marijuana: "It is barbaric to deny us access to one substance that has proved to ameliorate our suffering"   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, new york state supreme court, supreme court justices, New York, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, state legislature, state senate, marijuana, palliative  
•       •       •

1781 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2012 at 11:34 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



320 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-05-17 05:53:43 PM  
Living in NYC and watching my mother fighting the loosing battle with lung cancer I have to say I deeply agree with this op-ed.

While I dont want her smoking I could and would make any type of food with it for her. But while I have no problem getting it for her, the 1950s law and order mentality of doing something "illegal" prevents her from accepting this. If the law changed I might be able to get her to take it, and I could keep her from dipping lower than the 98lbs she is now at 5'7".
 
2012-05-17 07:42:25 PM  
I don't have a problem with it in principle, and I see no legitimate reason to deny it to people like this. But the guidelines for getting it have to be toughen up to stop stones.
 
2012-05-17 07:43:04 PM  
That's it, autocorrect dies. Stoners.
 
2012-05-17 08:57:24 PM  
If only more people would stand up and demand change, change will happen
 
2012-05-17 09:03:36 PM  

GAT_00: I don't have a problem with it in principle, and I see no legitimate reason to deny it to people like this. But the guidelines for getting it have to be toughen up to stop stones.


I see no legitimate reason to deny it to anyone 18+
 
2012-05-17 09:09:36 PM  

Ryan2065: GAT_00: I don't have a problem with it in principle, and I see no legitimate reason to deny it to people like this. But the guidelines for getting it have to be toughen up to stop stones.

I see no legitimate reason to deny it to anyone 18+


My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity.
 
2012-05-17 09:13:40 PM  

Ryan2065: I see no legitimate reason to deny it to anyone 18+


Maybe 21, if we allow Cocaine at 25, Heroin at 30...

More seriously: yeah, the trendline on this is to legalization. Probably soon.
(Though there looks like in cohort there might be a generational-period... sawtooth wave? WTF???)
I'm not sure it's a great idea. Simple legalization too closely approaches social darwinism for my comfort.
 
2012-05-17 09:20:54 PM  

GAT_00: My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity.


While I agree that seeing "medical" pot shops with shiatty pun names that cater to college kids with "back problems" is annoying as all damn hell, that's still not a good reason to keep it illegal. In fact, by legalizing pot completely, you'd get medical usage to gain back respectibility and authenticity since they can start, you know, actually providing it to medical patients.
 
2012-05-17 09:22:14 PM  
Hey, Boomers,

A lot of you are about to kick off in the next ten or twenty years, and odds are at least some of you aren't going to go gently into that good night. How about we take the stigma off the 'wacky tabacky' so your generation and mine can be happy?
 
2012-05-17 09:23:29 PM  

GAT_00: My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity.


Why should it be illegal for anyone who wants to use it? I don't see it as being any worse than alcohol, if anything, it's less harmful.
 
2012-05-17 09:23:58 PM  
What, exactly, is this Judge's voting record on related cases?
 
2012-05-17 09:25:49 PM  

Ed Finnerty: What, exactly, is this Judge's voting record on related cases?


It's sad that people turn to such opinions only when they are so sick they feel empathy for others.
 
2012-05-17 09:26:09 PM  

Chameleon: GAT_00: My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity.

While I agree that seeing "medical" pot shops with shiatty pun names that cater to college kids with "back problems" is annoying as all damn hell, that's still not a good reason to keep it illegal. In fact, by legalizing pot completely, you'd get medical usage to gain back respectibility and authenticity since they can start, you know, actually providing it to medical patients.


Or just makes the rules to authorize it a lot harder to knock that shiat off. It wouldn't be hard. But the stoners who are the backers of this don't want that, so you're left with an idea with promise backed by a legion of worthless morons.
 
2012-05-17 09:27:59 PM  

coco ebert: GAT_00: My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity.

Why should it be illegal for anyone who wants to use it? I don't see it as being any worse than alcohol, if anything, it's less harmful.


Because that's not the argument. They're hijacking legitimate medicine and fark people that do that. Its bad when Jenny McCarthy does it, why is it not for these people?
 
2012-05-17 09:29:47 PM  

GAT_00: My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity


GAT_00: Or just makes the rules to authorize it a lot harder to knock that shiat off. It wouldn't be hard. But the stoners who are the backers of this don't want that, so you're left with an idea with promise backed by a legion of worthless morons.


Or just legalize it...
 
2012-05-17 09:30:05 PM  

GAT_00: Chameleon: GAT_00: My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity.

While I agree that seeing "medical" pot shops with shiatty pun names that cater to college kids with "back problems" is annoying as all damn hell, that's still not a good reason to keep it illegal. In fact, by legalizing pot completely, you'd get medical usage to gain back respectibility and authenticity since they can start, you know, actually providing it to medical patients.

Or just makes the rules to authorize it a lot harder to knock that shiat off. It wouldn't be hard. But the stoners who are the backers of this don't want that, so you're left with an idea with promise backed by a legion of worthless morons.


And yet, in every war on drugs thread you blame conservatives.

Yet here you are, the ever loyal drug warrior. Allowing people like the judge here to suffer needlessly because you hate stoners.

You complain about people mocking medical ethics, yet you support policies that allow tremendous amounts of suffering.

But hey, people living in agony are acceptable casualties in Gat's war on weed.
 
2012-05-17 09:37:54 PM  

Ryan2065: GAT_00: My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity

GAT_00: Or just makes the rules to authorize it a lot harder to knock that shiat off. It wouldn't be hard. But the stoners who are the backers of this don't want that, so you're left with an idea with promise backed by a legion of worthless morons.

Or just legalize it...


He will not budge on this. I have him farkied as "99.9% right about everything, but tragically abused by pot smokers as a child."
 
2012-05-17 09:41:48 PM  

Fair_Poopsmith: Ryan2065: GAT_00: My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity

GAT_00: Or just makes the rules to authorize it a lot harder to knock that shiat off. It wouldn't be hard. But the stoners who are the backers of this don't want that, so you're left with an idea with promise backed by a legion of worthless morons.

Or just legalize it...

He will not budge on this. I have him farkied as "99.9% right about everything, but tragically abused by pot smokers as a child."


I wonder if Gat now thinks Treyvon deserved to be shot for being a, (and these are his words now) "worthless moron" cause he had weed in his system. I can only assume he would, considering he's totally fine with people like the judge having to live in unspeakable agony for the rest of their days because weed is apparently the most horrible thing in the world

It's odd. Usually he's extremely against conservative social policies...
 
2012-05-17 09:45:21 PM  

Aarontology: GAT_00: Chameleon: GAT_00: My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity.

While I agree that seeing "medical" pot shops with shiatty pun names that cater to college kids with "back problems" is annoying as all damn hell, that's still not a good reason to keep it illegal. In fact, by legalizing pot completely, you'd get medical usage to gain back respectibility and authenticity since they can start, you know, actually providing it to medical patients.

Or just makes the rules to authorize it a lot harder to knock that shiat off. It wouldn't be hard. But the stoners who are the backers of this don't want that, so you're left with an idea with promise backed by a legion of worthless morons.

And yet, in every war on drugs thread you blame conservatives.

Yet here you are, the ever loyal drug warrior. Allowing people like the judge here to suffer needlessly because you hate stoners.

You complain about people mocking medical ethics, yet you support policies that allow tremendous amounts of suffering.

But hey, people living in agony are acceptable casualties in Gat's war on weed.


I'm not saying throw them all in jail, I'm not saying make sentences more severe, I'm saying make sure it can't be abused.

Shocking, isn't it? Not wanting to see medicine abused. That is the problem here, and it is not being addressed. Did you just selectively read over the parts where I referred to it as legitimate medicine by choice since it doesn't fit your rhetoric against me, or did you just read what you want?
 
2012-05-17 09:46:36 PM  

Aarontology: I wonder if Gat now thinks Treyvon deserved to be shot for being a, (and these are his words now) "worthless moron" cause he had weed in his system. I can only assume he would, considering he's totally fine with people like the judge having to live in unspeakable agony for the rest of their days because weed is apparently the most horrible thing in the world

It's odd. Usually he's extremely against conservative social policies...


I'm not convinced it isn't a brilliant counter-troll. He's too remarkably consistent in his arguments- and time and time again, is able to point out the logical flaws in the wingnuts' posts. There's no way he's just overlooking the adolescent authoritarian reasoning necessary to oppose it on the grounds he claims to. It's got to be some kind of long con.
 
2012-05-17 09:47:38 PM  

Aarontology: Fair_Poopsmith: Ryan2065: GAT_00: My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity

GAT_00: Or just makes the rules to authorize it a lot harder to knock that shiat off. It wouldn't be hard. But the stoners who are the backers of this don't want that, so you're left with an idea with promise backed by a legion of worthless morons.

Or just legalize it...

He will not budge on this. I have him farkied as "99.9% right about everything, but tragically abused by pot smokers as a child."

I wonder if Gat now thinks Treyvon deserved to be shot for being a, (and these are his words now) "worthless moron" cause he had weed in his system. I can only assume he would, considering he's totally fine with people like the judge having to live in unspeakable agony for the rest of their days because weed is apparently the most horrible thing in the world

It's odd. Usually he's extremely against conservative social policies...


Just because he does believe that way is no reason to shiat all over him.


Gat and I rarely agree on much, but at least I know where he stands. I knows his principles. And yes, he can. Be very anti right at times like I am anti left. But, at the same time, heis about as left as left can be.
 
2012-05-17 09:48:24 PM  
\

GAT_00: Shocking, isn't it? Not wanting to see medicine abused. That is the problem here, and it is not being addressed. Did you just selectively read over the parts where I referred to it as legitimate medicine by choice since it doesn't fit your rhetoric against me, or did you just read what you want?


"GAT_00: My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity."

You refuse to allow people like the judge here end their suffering because you hate stoners. Those are your words buddy, not mine.
 
2012-05-17 09:48:40 PM  

GAT_00: I'm not saying throw them all in jail, I'm not saying make sentences more severe, I'm saying make sure it can't be abused.


What consititutes abuse? What would you suggest for a VERY heavy pot smoker who also holds down a good job, doesn't do anything stupid like drive while stoned, and keeps it away from children?
 
2012-05-17 09:48:44 PM  

cman: Aarontology: Fair_Poopsmith: Ryan2065: GAT_00: My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity

GAT_00: Or just makes the rules to authorize it a lot harder to knock that shiat off. It wouldn't be hard. But the stoners who are the backers of this don't want that, so you're left with an idea with promise backed by a legion of worthless morons.

Or just legalize it...

He will not budge on this. I have him farkied as "99.9% right about everything, but tragically abused by pot smokers as a child."

I wonder if Gat now thinks Treyvon deserved to be shot for being a, (and these are his words now) "worthless moron" cause he had weed in his system. I can only assume he would, considering he's totally fine with people like the judge having to live in unspeakable agony for the rest of their days because weed is apparently the most horrible thing in the world

It's odd. Usually he's extremely against conservative social policies...

Just because he does believe that way is no reason to shiat all over him.


Gat and I rarely agree on much, but at least I know where he stands. I knows his principles. And yes, he can. Be very anti right at times like I am anti left. But, at the same time, heis about as left as left can be.


Wow that came out bad. Typing on an iPad is no fun
 
2012-05-17 09:50:46 PM  

Fair_Poopsmith: I'm not convinced it isn't a brilliant counter-troll. He's too remarkably consistent in his arguments- and time and time again, is able to point out the logical flaws in the wingnuts' posts. There's no way he's just overlooking the adolescent authoritarian reasoning necessary to oppose it on the grounds he claims to. It's got to be some kind of long con.


Or it's just moralistic authoritarianism.

cman: Just because he does believe that way is no reason to shiat all over him.


Anyone who would deny medicine to the suffering deserves nothing but. Especially when it's because of hatred of a demographic.

Ever seen someone suffer because of pancreatic cancer? To deny someone their medicine even in the face of that is pure, base, cruelty
 
2012-05-17 09:53:41 PM  

Aarontology: \GAT_00: Shocking, isn't it? Not wanting to see medicine abused. That is the problem here, and it is not being addressed. Did you just selectively read over the parts where I referred to it as legitimate medicine by choice since it doesn't fit your rhetoric against me, or did you just read what you want?

"GAT_00: My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity."

You refuse to allow people like the judge here end their suffering because you hate stoners. Those are your words buddy, not mine.


I said make it legal IF you make sure it won't be abused by people with no medical need. Nobody seems to care about making sure something intended for medicine is actually used for medicine. All the problems with over prescribed prescription narcotics set clear examples of the unaddressed loopholes. Closing those should not be a major problem. At which point, I would have no problem with it, something I've now said I think three times.

I wonder if youll read it this time.
 
2012-05-17 09:54:48 PM  

Fair_Poopsmith: GAT_00: I'm not saying throw them all in jail, I'm not saying make sentences more severe, I'm saying make sure it can't be abused.

What consititutes abuse? What would you suggest for a VERY heavy pot smoker who also holds down a good job, doesn't do anything stupid like drive while stoned, and keeps it away from children?


The abuse I'm taking about here is people getting bogus claims of pain and injury and getting access to legal pot, nothing more wide ranging than that.
 
2012-05-17 09:55:20 PM  

Aarontology: Fair_Poopsmith: I'm not convinced it isn't a brilliant counter-troll. He's too remarkably consistent in his arguments- and time and time again, is able to point out the logical flaws in the wingnuts' posts. There's no way he's just overlooking the adolescent authoritarian reasoning necessary to oppose it on the grounds he claims to. It's got to be some kind of long con.

Or it's just moralistic authoritarianism.


Out of respect for his generally sound reasoning, I want to believe he's not a farking idiot.
 
2012-05-17 09:58:57 PM  

cman: Aarontology: Fair_Poopsmith: Ryan2065: GAT_00: My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity

GAT_00: Or just makes the rules to authorize it a lot harder to knock that shiat off. It wouldn't be hard. But the stoners who are the backers of this don't want that, so you're left with an idea with promise backed by a legion of worthless morons.

Or just legalize it...

He will not budge on this. I have him farkied as "99.9% right about everything, but tragically abused by pot smokers as a child."

I wonder if Gat now thinks Treyvon deserved to be shot for being a, (and these are his words now) "worthless moron" cause he had weed in his system. I can only assume he would, considering he's totally fine with people like the judge having to live in unspeakable agony for the rest of their days because weed is apparently the most horrible thing in the world

It's odd. Usually he's extremely against conservative social policies...

Just because he does believe that way is no reason to shiat all over him.


Gat and I rarely agree on much, but at least I know where he stands. I knows his principles. And yes, he can. Be very anti right at times like I am anti left. But, at the same time, heis about as left as left can be.


There aren't many people left of me, that's for sure. But I've never been convinced that people will not back liberal arguments to government, just that there are few to no elected liberals and nobody gives the rest of us air time. They'd much rather go on and on about what pissed the right off today, or what's going to piss the right off tomorrow.
 
2012-05-17 09:59:22 PM  

GAT_00: Ryan2065: GAT_00: I don't have a problem with it in principle, and I see no legitimate reason to deny it to people like this. But the guidelines for getting it have to be toughen up to stop stones.

I see no legitimate reason to deny it to anyone 18+

My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity.


Stoners are too lazy for such Machiavellian activities.

I'd much rather be in a traffic with someone stoned on a mission to get to Taco Bell than the white collar guy that just drank his lunch.

Just legalize, regulate and tax it already.
 
2012-05-17 09:59:23 PM  
I say make it full legal, 21 and up.

But cmon, you're a justice, you should be able to get access to some good shiat.
 
2012-05-17 10:00:20 PM  
Just farking legalize it already. Or ban alcohol and tobacco. Either way works fine for me, I simply loathe hypocrisy.
 
2012-05-17 10:01:05 PM  

Fair_Poopsmith: Aarontology: Fair_Poopsmith: I'm not convinced it isn't a brilliant counter-troll. He's too remarkably consistent in his arguments- and time and time again, is able to point out the logical flaws in the wingnuts' posts. There's no way he's just overlooking the adolescent authoritarian reasoning necessary to oppose it on the grounds he claims to. It's got to be some kind of long con.

Or it's just moralistic authoritarianism.

Out of respect for his generally sound reasoning, I want to believe he's not a farking idiot.


I'd like someone, anyone to explain why we can't address these bogus claims instead of talking about me.

But no, I'm not generally fond of people who break the law, or of people who exploit loopholes, and particularly not when both apply.
 
2012-05-17 10:01:12 PM  

GAT_00: Fair_Poopsmith: GAT_00: I'm not saying throw them all in jail, I'm not saying make sentences more severe, I'm saying make sure it can't be abused.

What consititutes abuse? What would you suggest for a VERY heavy pot smoker who also holds down a good job, doesn't do anything stupid like drive while stoned, and keeps it away from children?

The abuse I'm taking about here is people getting bogus claims of pain and injury and getting access to legal pot, nothing more wide ranging than that.


Which is....only a thing.... because it's illegal. But you KNOW that. I don't even think I take issue with the fact that you're anti-"stoner" so much as the fact that you can clearly see how unsound and circular your argument is. I could agree with your conclusion 100%, but your argument would still make zero sense.
 
2012-05-17 10:02:30 PM  

GAT_00: I don't have a problem with it in principle, and I see no legitimate reason to deny it to people like this. But the guidelines for getting it have to be toughen up to stop stones.


there is no legitimate reason to limit cannabis use to anyone over the age of 21.
 
2012-05-17 10:03:35 PM  

GAT_00: Nobody seems to care about making sure something intended for medicine is actually used for medicine.


People do care. Reasonable people just care more about ending suffering. You care more about sticking it to the stoners. That's why there's that IF in your statement. The most central medical ethic is "Do no harm." Denying someone medicine is doing harm.

Especially when the abuse is nimrods watching cartoons and annoying the 711 guy when they buy chips. That's the issue dude. The fact that you care more about that than ending someone's suffering. You're a professor of some sort, right? How many of your students are all zonked on adderall and other rx meds? Should all of those be illegal as well. IT doesn't take much to go to a doctor and say "My back hurts" or "I can't concentrate"

I'm not denying that you say you have concerns and that you support with conditions. I'm saying that in the face of suffering like the judge's your concerns over the incredibly minor consequences of abuse is completely unreasonable, especially when you consider that a large amount of your opposition is related to your moralistic view of stoners instead of some actual adherence to the spirit of medical ethics.
 
2012-05-17 10:07:18 PM  

djkutch: GAT_00: Ryan2065: GAT_00: I don't have a problem with it in principle, and I see no legitimate reason to deny it to people like this. But the guidelines for getting it have to be toughen up to stop stones.

I see no legitimate reason to deny it to anyone 18+

My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity.

Stoners are too lazy for such Machiavellian activities.

I'd much rather be in a traffic with someone stoned on a mission to get to Taco Bell than the white collar guy that just drank his lunch.

Just legalize, regulate and tax it already.


And that's also why you can't get it passed. Pro-legalization protests are filled with people who show up stoned and look like the type of people who contribute nothing. If you really want legalization to get somewhere, you have to look like you're worth something. A crowd of people who don't look like stoners calling for legalization is worth far more than the usual protests.

If you want the establishment to listen, you have to play at least some of their game. If you look like you should be ignored, you'll get ignored. Its why I went to one OWS protest and left when I realized at least half of the people were currently stoned. Its so farking stupid and easy to not shoot yourself in the foot like that.
 
2012-05-17 10:07:29 PM  

GAT_00: But no, I'm not generally fond of people who break the law, or of people who exploit loopholes, and particularly not when both apply.


You've already said that even if it was legal, you would like to create new laws to prevent its "abuse."
 
2012-05-17 10:08:40 PM  
Since, you know, as an adult, I "own" my body, I should be able to put whatever the heck I want in it.
 
2012-05-17 10:14:01 PM  

GAT_00: Pro-legalization protests are filled with people who show up stoned and look like the type of people who contribute nothing. If you really want legalization to get somewhere, you have to look like you're worth something. A crowd of people who don't look like stoners calling for legalization is worth far more than the usual protests.

If you want the establishment to listen, you have to play at least some of their game. If you look like you should be ignored, you'll get ignored. Its why I went to one OWS protest and left when I realized at least half of the people were currently stoned. Its so farking stupid and easy to not shoot yourself in the foot like that.


You're not wrong about any of this, but it has no bearing on your conclusion that there is value in keeping criminal penalties for an unspecified cannabis-using lifestyle.

"I'm against gay marriage, because it's illegal, and I don't like how the gays are co-opting the christian idea of 'marriage' in order to receive medical benefits. Well, yeah, I know that isn't the only reason, but MAN, there sure is a lot of that going around, and I hate people who exploit the law that way. Have you ever been to a gay pride parade? Those homo protests are filled with people who show up in leather chaps and feather boas and and look like the type of people who are constantly buttfarking. If you really want legalization to get somewhere, you have to look like you're worth something. A crowd of people who don't look like queens calling for legalization is worth far more than the usual protests.

If you want the establishment to listen, you have to play at least some of their game. If you look like you should be ignored, you'll get ignored. Its why I went to one Gay Pride Parade protest and left when I realized at least half of the people were acting promiscuous. Its so farking stupid and easy to not shoot yourself in the foot like that."
 
2012-05-17 10:17:30 PM  

Aarontology: GAT_00: Nobody seems to care about making sure something intended for medicine is actually used for medicine.

People do care. Reasonable people just care more about ending suffering. You care more about sticking it to the stoners. That's why there's that IF in your statement. The most central medical ethic is "Do no harm." Denying someone medicine is doing harm.

Especially when the abuse is nimrods watching cartoons and annoying the 711 guy when they buy chips. That's the issue dude. The fact that you care more about that than ending someone's suffering. You're a professor of some sort, right? How many of your students are all zonked on adderall and other rx meds? Should all of those be illegal as well. IT doesn't take much to go to a doctor and say "My back hurts" or "I can't concentrate"

I'm not denying that you say you have concerns and that you support with conditions. I'm saying that in the face of suffering like the judge's your concerns over the incredibly minor consequences of abuse is completely unreasonable, especially when you consider that a large amount of your opposition is related to your moralistic view of stoners instead of some actual adherence to the spirit of medical ethics.


God I hope I'm not a prof yet. I actually had one asshole walk in with a 'San Francisco Stoners' hat the first lab I taught. The most stereotypical stoner I've ever seen, and from my perspective, that's disrespectful. I know you don't want to be here, its an elective for most of the class, but come the fark on. Its a class. If it wasn't literally my first day I would have thrown his ass out.

And no, don't try to pretend this is the whole reason for all of this here. I've been generally against legalization for a while. I have friends who I know smoke, and that's fine, because they aren't dumb enough to try to bullshiat the law.

And to stand there and say I'm not talking about medical ethics when I'm saying that medical abuse is the problem is absurd. My whole problem is medical ethics. And here is where I know you're not actually reading my posts, when you talk about prescription meds when halfway up the page I said this is exactly the same problem as that.

So I suppose the question is, why am I bothering to take the time to respond to your posts when you're clearly not reading mine?
 
2012-05-17 10:19:41 PM  

GAT_00: djkutch: GAT_00: Ryan2065: GAT_00: I don't have a problem with it in principle, and I see no legitimate reason to deny it to people like this. But the guidelines for getting it have to be toughen up to stop stones.

I see no legitimate reason to deny it to anyone 18+

My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity.

Stoners are too lazy for such Machiavellian activities.

I'd much rather be in a traffic with someone stoned on a mission to get to Taco Bell than the white collar guy that just drank his lunch.

Just legalize, regulate and tax it already.

And that's also why you can't get it passed. Pro-legalization protests are filled with people who show up stoned and look like the type of people who contribute nothing. If you really want legalization to get somewhere, you have to look like you're worth something. A crowd of people who don't look like stoners calling for legalization is worth far more than the usual protests.

If you want the establishment to listen, you have to play at least some of their game. If you look like you should be ignored, you'll get ignored. Its why I went to one OWS protest and left when I realized at least half of the people were currently stoned. Its so farking stupid and easy to not shoot yourself in the foot like that.


I would dare opine that marijuana legalization has less to do with the appearance of its proponents than a prohibition law that is just effective as alcohol and prohibition was.

And, the scary trend of privatizing prisons. You have to fill those cells up. There's money in those confused stoners overwhelmed with the choices for building a burrito at Chiptole.
 
2012-05-17 10:21:56 PM  

Fair_Poopsmith: GAT_00: Pro-legalization protests are filled with people who show up stoned and look like the type of people who contribute nothing. If you really want legalization to get somewhere, you have to look like you're worth something. A crowd of people who don't look like stoners calling for legalization is worth far more than the usual protests.

If you want the establishment to listen, you have to play at least some of their game. If you look like you should be ignored, you'll get ignored. Its why I went to one OWS protest and left when I realized at least half of the people were currently stoned. Its so farking stupid and easy to not shoot yourself in the foot like that.

You're not wrong about any of this, but it has no bearing on your conclusion that there is value in keeping criminal penalties for an unspecified cannabis-using lifestyle.

"I'm against gay marriage, because it's illegal, and I don't like how the gays are co-opting the christian idea of 'marriage' in order to receive medical benefits. Well, yeah, I know that isn't the only reason, but MAN, there sure is a lot of that going around, and I hate people who exploit the law that way. Have you ever been to a gay pride parade? Those homo protests are filled with people who show up in leather chaps and feather boas and and look like the type of people who are constantly buttfarking. If you really want legalization to get somewhere, you have to look like you're worth something. A crowd of people who don't look like queens calling for legalization is worth far more than the usual protests.

If you want the establishment to listen, you have to play at least some of their game. If you look like you should be ignored, you'll get ignored. Its why I went to one Gay Pride Parade protest and left when I realized at least half of the people were acting promiscuous. Its so farking stupid and easy to not shoot yourself in the foot like that."


False equivalence is false. The equivalence would be 'gay people can't get married because they aren't really in a relationship, its just a scam for marriage benefits.' Which by the way is illegal for anyone to do. So not really valid at all. Letting anyone get married instead of two fake sham marriages for the benefits with two gay couples crossing for a 'tradional' marriage would be the scam, so its why you should allow them to actually get married.

And what the hell is stoner culture besides Taco Bell and Half-Baked?
 
2012-05-17 10:25:25 PM  

GAT_00:
False equivalence is false. The equivalence would be 'gay pe ...


Again, I say... You're not wrong about any of this, but it has no bearing on your conclusion that there is value in keeping criminal penalties for an unspecified cannabis-using lifestyle.
 
2012-05-17 10:26:56 PM  

GAT_00: And what the hell is stoner culture besides Taco Bell and Half-Baked?


So, like. How 'bout this. We make weed legal, but make stoner culture illegal. Because those f*ckers are annoying and even the successful productive potheads hate stoner culture.
 
2012-05-17 10:27:30 PM  
... Our forefathers just *had* to take in the Puritans, didn't they... ~8-|
 
2012-05-17 10:29:44 PM  
I am gonna make an assumption that I am probably the only one in this thread who thinks heroin and methamphetamine (and all drugs) should be legalized.

Please prove me wrong. I hate being *that guy* alone in a thread
 
2012-05-17 10:36:33 PM  

GAT_00:

False equivalence is false.


yes, but your entire argument is one giant false equivalence.
 
2012-05-17 10:36:55 PM  

cman: I am gonna make an assumption that I am probably the only one in this thread who thinks heroin and methamphetamine (and all drugs) should be legalized.

Please prove me wrong. I hate being *that guy* alone in a thread


violentsalvation: Since, you know, as an adult, I "own" my body, I should be able to put whatever the heck I want in it.

 
2012-05-17 10:37:12 PM  

Fair_Poopsmith: GAT_00:
False equivalence is false. The equivalence would be 'gay pe ...

Again, I say... You're not wrong about any of this, but it has no bearing on your conclusion that there is value in keeping criminal penalties for an unspecified cannabis-using lifestyle.


And where have I said anything about that? You're putting words in my mouth about wider topics that aren't actually up for debate and weren't the subject of my posts before everyone decided I was wrong because they didn't like what I said. At no point have I discussed wide scale legalization or dismissal thereof, and I have no intention of doing so because I know what i say will be ignored there too.
 
Displayed 50 of 320 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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