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.

(Huffington Post)   So like......check it bro......some study found that medical weed shops do NOT lead to an increase in crime, yo. Woah. I got it dude...hear me out...ok, so we like build weed shops wherever there is war. Boom. No war   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 96
    More: Cool, marijuana dispensary, planning commission, San Francisco, SF Weekly, cigarette smokers, dispensary, San Francisco Police Department, cancer ward  
•       •       •

3292 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jun 2012 at 10:57 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-06-12 09:40:54 AM
Subby, I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter. Or gimme the phone# for your dealer. Whichever.
 
2012-06-12 09:48:24 AM
Sounds like a winning plan. We should also have them in places where people who want wars live as well.
 
2012-06-12 10:46:03 AM
I guess it depends on the management or the locale... We had one for a while until the Feds mashed their dinner. The strip mall it was in was marginal already. It had a CVS which was safe enough and a usual assortment of stores...Papa John's, Hollywood Video, BofA. Two of the stores were dollar stores. So not upscale by any means.

While the dispensary was there I would compare the folks shambling about as similar to a seedy Liquor Store. Cars got broken into, store windows were occasionally broken. Correlation vs causation, who knows, I live in a town full of assholes and this was probably just a convergence point. It shifted my opinion of dispensaries quite a bit though.
 
2012-06-12 10:59:14 AM
fark.upi.com
 
2012-06-12 11:00:23 AM
Are we including the L.A. County Sheriff data in this study?
 
2012-06-12 11:03:43 AM
Let the canabis gentrification commence.

Legal *snerk* medical weed won't increase crime where the dispensary itself is located but as it drives the illegal weed dealers out of business crime in those neighborhoods will increase.

So if you ever buy "medical" marijuana you are no better than the CIA that invented crack and dumped it into the inner city
 
2012-06-12 11:05:03 AM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Are we including the L.A. County Sheriff data in this study?


Obviously not. SF is Disneyland compared to the shiat the goes on at LA dispensaries.
 
2012-06-12 11:05:50 AM
Rigorous scientific studies have been disproving the link between marijuana and all manner of negative behaviors for decades and it hasn't changed the reaction to its use by the authorities one jot. The reason we crack down on marijuana isn't because it's a nuisance; it's because lots of people make lots of money from doing so.
 
2012-06-12 11:06:48 AM
Armed guards at most of these places, yes?

So, we should send guns to places where there are wars?
 
2012-06-12 11:08:04 AM

Disposable Rob: [fark.upi.com image 301x301]


Choom Gang unavailable for comment.
 
2012-06-12 11:08:34 AM
So Jon Stewart is submitting headlines now? Drew's gonna go ape shiat when he finds out.
 
2012-06-12 11:10:08 AM

gopher321: Subby, I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter. Or gimme the phone# for your dealer. Whichever.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(this is actually top 10 headline material, which doesn't rely on a soundbyte meme... unless submitter stole it from reddit, in which case screw you subby.)

/doesn't visit reddit
//web 1.0 flashbacks
 
2012-06-12 11:10:34 AM

Heron: Rigorous scientific studies have been disproving the link between marijuana and all manner of negative behaviors for decades and it hasn't changed the reaction to its use by the authorities one jot. The reason we crack down on marijuana isn't because it's a nuisance; it's because lots of people make lots of money from doing so.


So let's accept your hypothesis, does this mean that Mexican drug cartels don't exist?
 
2012-06-12 11:13:23 AM

Heron: Rigorous scientific studies have been disproving the link between marijuana and all manner of negative behaviors for decades and it hasn't changed the reaction to its use by the authorities one jot. The reason we crack down on marijuana isn't because it's a nuisance; it's because lots of people make lots of money from doing so.


big tobacco could also make lots of money from it, so why isn't big tobacco? make cannibus 'miller in a can', and tobacco 'milller in a glass bottle' like that old class division advertisment. more money, more revenue streams from cannibus uses, can charge more for tobacco itself as a luxury item, bam, more profit.


/i think users are losers
//but there's worse out there
 
2012-06-12 11:16:09 AM

Heron: Rigorous scientific studies have been disproving the link between marijuana and all manner of negative behaviors for decades and it hasn't changed the reaction to its use by the authorities one jot. The reason we crack down on marijuana isn't because it's a nuisance; it's because lots of people make lots of money from doing so.


Weaponized THC. The military industrial complex will make a mint on dope bombs. Every Taliban fighter will come out of hiding looking for munchies after "toke" the whole tribal area. Once this has become common place the manufactures will look to expand to the civilian market. People are making a lot of money of of enforcement we just need to change who's making the money and legal change will follow.

/of course a joint from the carlyle group will cost over two grand
 
2012-06-12 11:16:20 AM
That was always my theory too. Just drop weed, alcohol and tons of pornography into war zones and the other side really wont care about fighting anymore.
 
2012-06-12 11:17:17 AM

bhcompy: So let's accept your hypothesis, does this mean that Mexican drug cartels don't exist?


No, it means that they DO exist, and pay a whole mess of cash to a whole mess of people. It's the infamous "plomo /Plata" system.
 
2012-06-12 11:17:56 AM
It's not Fark, it's highdeas.com
 
2012-06-12 11:21:08 AM

One Bad Apple: Let the canabis gentrification commence.

Legal *snerk* medical weed won't increase crime where the dispensary itself is located but as it drives the illegal weed dealers out of business crime in those neighborhoods will increase.

So if you ever buy "medical" marijuana you are no better than the CIA that invented crack and dumped it into the inner city


Anyone who compares crack to marijuana has no idea what they are talking about. As someone who lived in Detroit for 50 years (still work there...sigh) I can tell you that what crack does to people is worse than anything you can imagine. It RUINS people.

Weed? Most I have seen is that it makes people lazy and might give them breathing problems. As far as I am concerned if I found the genie in the lamp, I would wish alcohol out of existance and let marijuana be legal. I know far too many people whose lives have been ruined by booze.
 
2012-06-12 11:22:01 AM

fireclown: bhcompy: So let's accept your hypothesis, does this mean that Mexican drug cartels don't exist?

No, it means that they DO exist, and pay a whole mess of cash to a whole mess of people. It's the infamous "plomo /Plata" system.


But, apparently, they're not violent since the link between marijuana and negative behaviors has been disproved?
 
2012-06-12 11:22:04 AM

ExperianScaresCthulhu:

big tobacco could also make lots of money from it, so why isn't big tobacco?


Because. Cannabis. Is. Federally. Illegal. In. The. US.

/smells like troll
 
2012-06-12 11:23:26 AM
Bob already covered this...

"If dem want to win the revolution, must win it, wit rasta!
Can't win no other way, because if you win other way, you go fight again.
If rasta win, den no more war "
 
2012-06-12 11:23:47 AM
www.drugwarfacts.org

So why is marijuana illegal and tobacco/alcohol legal again?

Oh, I forgot, Pot got popular back when the youth told the government to go fark itself.

/Now the younger generation is too busy voting for the fat chick on American Idol
 
2012-06-12 11:25:36 AM
i46.tinypic.com

I've loved Jon Stewart's comparison on the Daily Show the past few days. Just shows how ridiculously out of wack out priorities have gotten. For those who didn't see the show. It's a $200 fine for serving a 22 ounce coke, while a $100 fine for being caught with an ounce of weed in NY.

We've become convinced that policing half the issues while gracefully pushing the others off to the side like they don't matter will save us from our own mistakes.
 
2012-06-12 11:27:00 AM
Headline makes no sense. Saying it does NOT lead to an increase in crime is NOT the same as saying it leads to a decrease in crime.

/dnrtfa
 
2012-06-12 11:29:03 AM

One Bad Apple: Let the canabis gentrification commence.

Legal *snerk* medical weed won't increase crime where the dispensary itself is located but as it drives the illegal weed dealers out of business crime in those neighborhoods will increase.

So if you ever buy "medical" marijuana you are no better than the CIA that invented crack and dumped it into the inner city


Care to elaborate on this outrageous assertion? Specifically how less criminal activity will equate to more criminal activity.
 
2012-06-12 11:30:44 AM

lewismarktwo: /smells like troll


I think I detect the aroma of an axehead on a whetstone, myself.
 
2012-06-12 11:31:14 AM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Heron: Rigorous scientific studies have been disproving the link between marijuana and all manner of negative behaviors for decades and it hasn't changed the reaction to its use by the authorities one jot. The reason we crack down on marijuana isn't because it's a nuisance; it's because lots of people make lots of money from doing so.

big tobacco could also make lots of money from it, so why isn't big tobacco? make cannibus 'miller in a can', and tobacco 'milller in a glass bottle' like that old class division advertisment. more money, more revenue streams from cannibus uses, can charge more for tobacco itself as a luxury item, bam, more profit.


/i think users are losers
//but there's worse out there



The tobacco companies don't want to see legal weed because it's really easy to grow enough behind your garage for personal use. They can't get a cut if they aren't part of distribution.

Big brewers and distillers don't want to see legal weed because drunk and high are essentially interchangeable types of intoxication, and it's in their best interests to limit recreational drugs that could be alternatives to alcohol.

Cotton growers don't want to see legal weed because legalizing marijuana means hemp can proliferate, which can make cheap and durable clothing at a fraction of the price of cotton.

There is a lot of money at stake, and a lot of people interested in preserving the status quo. Only if/when governments get desperate enough for additional tax revenue will marijuana sales be legalized.
 
2012-06-12 11:36:24 AM

bhcompy: Heron: Rigorous scientific studies have been disproving the link between marijuana and all manner of negative behaviors for decades and it hasn't changed the reaction to its use by the authorities one jot. The reason we crack down on marijuana isn't because it's a nuisance; it's because lots of people make lots of money from doing so.

So let's accept your hypothesis, does this mean that Mexican drug cartels don't exist?


So we should continue to criminalize a perfectly harmless plant here because of what some terrorists are doing in Mexico? That's sound logic!
 
2012-06-12 11:37:10 AM

Jubeebee: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Heron: Rigorous scientific studies have been disproving the link between marijuana and all manner of negative behaviors for decades and it ...

/i think users are losers
//but there's worse out there


The tobacco companies don't want to see legal weed because it's really easy to grow enough behind your garage for personal use. They can't get a cut if they aren't part of distribution.

Big brewers and distillers don't want to see legal weed because drunk and high are essentially interchangeable types of intoxication, and it's in their best interests to limit recreational drugs that could be alternatives to alcohol.

Cotton growers don't want to see legal weed because legalizing marijuana means hemp can proliferate, which can make cheap and durable clothing at a fraction of the price of cotton.

There is a lot of money at stake, and a lot of people interested in preserving the status quo. Only if/when governments get desperate enough for additional tax revenue will marijuana sales be legalized.


I'm pretty sure that the pharmaceutical industry and police unions are a big part of that resistance also. Weed is a fantastic pain killer that you can grow in your yard.

No idea why police unions care so much. But they've never provided much reasoning for any of the assholish things they do on a regular basis.
 
2012-06-12 11:37:23 AM
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-06-12 11:39:51 AM

Jubeebee: Big brewers and distillers don't want to see legal weed because drunk and high are essentially interchangeable types of intoxication, and it's in their best interests to limit recreational drugs that could be alternatives to alcohol.


Except they're not, at all. The chemistry, physiology and degree and type of impairment are drastically different.
 
2012-06-12 11:39:58 AM
I have a stupid question -- once upon a time, everyone spelled the word "whoa". Now, no one spells it the old way, apparently we've all adopted the spelling conventions that semi-retarded 13 year olds use. But enough editorial opinion, I'm mostly curious about timeframes.

I know this happened in the last 25 years or so. Is there a free tool on the web somewhere that plots the frequency of word usage, sort of a Lexis-Nexis or Google Trends kind of thing? Thanks.
 
2012-06-12 11:41:00 AM

Gunderson: [www.drugwarfacts.org image 620x460]

So why is marijuana illegal and tobacco/alcohol legal again?

Oh, I forgot, Pot got popular back when the youth told the government to go fark itself.

/Now the younger generation is too busy voting for the fat chick on American Idol


You missed it by about 40 years.

Pot/Weed/Hemp has been illegal since the 1920s, when laws were passed banning the possession without a permit, and possession required to get a permit. It was backed partly by growers of cotton and makers of newspulp as hemp threatened those industries with a competing product.

The whole "War on drugs" thing is a new spin on the same old laws.
 
2012-06-12 11:43:13 AM
I was clicking around on youtube last night and found an interesting legalize weed video.

It was a bit of conspiracy, but it brought up a great point. something like:

It is not the governments job to protect your from alcohol, or cigarettes, or guns, or people with guns, or driving too fast without a seatbelt, it is not the governments job to protect you from yourself. They generally do not care what you do to yourself, however they chose to make marijuana illegal. Do you wonder why?

Because of all the uses of hemp. And the threat it posed to so many American industries.

It went on about rope and clothing and a fuel for cars. It was interesting.

We've talked about this 1000 times on here though so this is all pretty obvious propaganda to us now...but people still buy the lies.
 
2012-06-12 11:43:16 AM

Jubeebee: Only if/when governments get desperate enough for additional tax revenue will marijuana sales be legalized.


Which in the grand scheme of things isn't that much, as they've studied this in CA
 
2012-06-12 11:44:42 AM
Jubeebee: Big brewers and distillers don't want to see legal weed because drunk and high are essentially interchangeable types of intoxication,

what? nope.
 
2012-06-12 11:48:24 AM

Gunderson: So why is marijuana illegal and tobacco/alcohol legal again?

Oh, I forgot, Pot got popular back when the youth told the government to go fark itself.

/Now the younger generation is too busy voting for the fat chick on American Idol


No, it goes back way farther than that. For a long time, all newspapers in the US were printed on hemp paper. Newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst bought huge tracks of timberland in the West, with a mind to corner the market with wood-based newsprint. But to do that, he had to rid himself of competition from the cheaper (and less polluting) hemp newsprint. So he paid off the right people and the government began a public "education" campaign to tell people how dangerous marijuana is. The movie Reefer Madness was actually produced for and by the government. One of the scare tactics was that pot was very popular with the Colored and it drove them to want to rape white women and commit other heinous crimes. Before long an outraged public demanded action and pot was outlawed. Since that time, the alcohol industry has vehemently opposed the legalization or decriminalization of pot.
 
2012-06-12 11:49:48 AM
Vote Yes on 64.

/Colorado
 
2012-06-12 11:54:01 AM

busy chillin': Jubeebee: Big brewers and distillers don't want to see legal weed because drunk and high are essentially interchangeable types of intoxication,

what? nope.


ummm.......yeah, not at all the same
 
2012-06-12 11:54:17 AM

Kit Fister: Gunderson: [www.drugwarfacts.org image 620x460]

So why is marijuana illegal and tobacco/alcohol legal again?

Oh, I forgot, Pot got popular back when the youth told the government to go fark itself.

/Now the younger generation is too busy voting for the fat chick on American Idol

You missed it by about 40 years.

Pot/Weed/Hemp has been illegal since the 1920s, when laws were passed banning the possession without a permit, and possession required to get a permit. It was backed partly by growers of cotton and makers of newspulp as hemp threatened those industries with a competing product.

The whole "War on drugs" thing is a new spin on the same old laws.


Still missing a lot of the story. Was back partly by cotton growers, yes, but mostly by LA Sheriffs wanting an excuse to close down black jazz clubs and by midwestern and western congressmen wanting an excuse to deport hispanics.

Of course, nowhere in any of that is there any mention of health side-effects being a reason, and in fact the AMA was blocked from testifying in the hearings leading up to the bans.

/but I've been told that ignorant people voting for ignorant policies has no effect on me, so it must be something else...
 
2012-06-12 11:54:23 AM

Digital Communist:

Care to elaborate on this outrageous assertion? Specifically how less criminal activity will equate to more criminal activity.


Before the dispensary most weed buyers had to travel into the bad parts of town to buy weed from those that lived there. With the dispensaries the weed buyers no long need to take such risks such as being robbed or even arrested while buying weed. That's great for the buyers but what about the guy who sold it illegally ? He sees his customer base vanish and his own income with it. He needs to make up for the loss some other way. Most likely by selling a different (and by most measures a "worse") drug or some other kind of criminal activity.
 
2012-06-12 11:57:54 AM

One Bad Apple: Digital Communist:

Care to elaborate on this outrageous assertion? Specifically how less criminal activity will equate to more criminal activity.

Before the dispensary most weed buyers had to travel into the bad parts of town to buy weed from those that lived there. With the dispensaries the weed buyers no long need to take such risks such as being robbed or even arrested while buying weed. That's great for the buyers but what about the guy who sold it illegally ? He sees his customer base vanish and his own income with it. He needs to make up for the loss some other way. Most likely by selling a different (and by most measures a "worse") drug or some other kind of criminal activity.


I'm not sure if you've been to a dispensary in LA, but the area that they are is no different from the area drugs are being sold on the street for the most part
 
2012-06-12 12:00:58 PM

One Bad Apple: Digital Communist:

Care to elaborate on this outrageous assertion? Specifically how less criminal activity will equate to more criminal activity.

Before the dispensary most weed buyers had to travel into the bad parts of town to buy weed from those that lived there. With the dispensaries the weed buyers no long need to take such risks such as being robbed or even arrested while buying weed. That's great for the buyers but what about the guy who sold it illegally ? He sees his customer base vanish and his own income with it. He needs to make up for the loss some other way. Most likely by selling a different (and by most measures a "worse") drug or some other kind of criminal activity.


Eh, no. A lot of the dealers I've, eh, heard of, just got their medical MJ card, buy it up there and then resell it to people who can't be bothered to get one.
 
2012-06-12 12:22:46 PM

Digital Communist: Jubeebee: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Heron: Rigorous scientific studies have been disproving the link between marijuana and all manner of negative behaviors for decades and it ...

/i think users are losers
//but there's worse out there


The tobacco companies don't want to see legal weed because it's really easy to grow enough behind your garage for personal use. They can't get a cut if they aren't part of distribution.

Big brewers and distillers don't want to see legal weed because drunk and high are essentially interchangeable types of intoxication, and it's in their best interests to limit recreational drugs that could be alternatives to alcohol.

Cotton growers don't want to see legal weed because legalizing marijuana means hemp can proliferate, which can make cheap and durable clothing at a fraction of the price of cotton.

There is a lot of money at stake, and a lot of people interested in preserving the status quo. Only if/when governments get desperate enough for additional tax revenue will marijuana sales be legalized.

I'm pretty sure that the pharmaceutical industry and police unions are a big part of that resistance also. Weed is a fantastic pain killer that you can grow in your yard.

No idea why police unions care so much. But they've never provided much reasoning for any of the assholish things they do on a regular basis.


Big Pharma spends millions (if not billions) of dollars every year in "donations to fight the war on drugs". They do not care about anything other than pot because they cannot make money on a drug that can be easily grown in your own yard.

I would be shocked if marijuana is ever legalized on a Federal level. If the police unions are "caring" about the legalization, it's because they are also getting money to keep it illegal.

This is something I am aware of because of my personal experience. I don't smoke the stuff, but I fully support making it legal.
 
2012-06-12 12:24:30 PM

One Bad Apple: Let the canabis gentrification commence.

Legal *snerk* medical weed won't increase crime where the dispensary itself is located but as it drives the illegal weed dealers out of business crime in those neighborhoods will increase.

So if you ever buy "medical" marijuana you are no better than the CIA that invented crack and dumped it into the inner city


No they didn't. They didn't invent AIDS either. Reverend Wright, and whoever else you heard that from, is an idiot.
 
2012-06-12 12:25:51 PM

Garm: I guess it depends on the management or the locale... We had one for a while until the Feds mashed their dinner. The strip mall it was in was marginal already. It had a CVS which was safe enough and a usual assortment of stores...Papa John's, Hollywood Video, BofA. Two of the stores were dollar stores. So not upscale by any means.

While the dispensary was there I would compare the folks shambling about as similar to a seedy Liquor Store. Cars got broken into, store windows were occasionally broken. Correlation vs causation, who knows, I live in a town full of assholes and this was probably just a convergence point. It shifted my opinion of dispensaries quite a bit though.


I'd really like to believe you, because you sound so concerned.
 
2012-06-12 12:30:04 PM

StrangeQ: One Bad Apple: Digital Communist:

Care to elaborate on this outrageous assertion? Specifically how less criminal activity will equate to more criminal activity.

Before the dispensary most weed buyers had to travel into the bad parts of town to buy weed from those that lived there. With the dispensaries the weed buyers no long need to take such risks such as being robbed or even arrested while buying weed. That's great for the buyers but what about the guy who sold it illegally ? He sees his customer base vanish and his own income with it. He needs to make up for the loss some other way. Most likely by selling a different (and by most measures a "worse") drug or some other kind of criminal activity.

Eh, no. A lot of the dealers I've, eh, heard of, just got their medical MJ card, buy it up there and then resell it to people who can't be bothered to get one.


so basically the medical part of medical marijuana is a joke, and is intended to be a joke, with only lip service to public health. mostly, it's just about folks wanting to get high on something the same way the same folks would get a buzz from alcohol or get a feeling of 'urge sated' from tobacco?

/if marijuana was banned because of its association with mexican indians...
//what does it say that it will only get unbanned because of its association with whites?
 
2012-06-12 12:32:10 PM

bhcompy: fireclown: bhcompy: So let's accept your hypothesis, does this mean that Mexican drug cartels don't exist?

No, it means that they DO exist, and pay a whole mess of cash to a whole mess of people. It's the infamous "plomo /Plata" system.

But, apparently, they're not violent since the link between marijuana and negative behaviors has been disproved?


A person with a few functioning brain cells would probably realize that marijuana doesn't cause cartels. And class, what does cause cartels? Anyone?
 
2012-06-12 12:36:19 PM

knobmaker: bhcompy: fireclown: bhcompy: So let's accept your hypothesis, does this mean that Mexican drug cartels don't exist?

No, it means that they DO exist, and pay a whole mess of cash to a whole mess of people. It's the infamous "plomo /Plata" system.

But, apparently, they're not violent since the link between marijuana and negative behaviors has been disproved?

A person with a few functioning brain cells would probably realize that marijuana doesn't cause cartels. And class, what does cause cartels? Anyone?


Unclean women.
 
2012-06-12 12:48:47 PM
Makes sense to me.

A magazine publisher, Wayne Green, said to end the Vietnam War all we had to do was give all the Vietnamese a TV and provide some mindless programming and they would be too distracted to fight.

Both these ideas are probably correct.
 
2012-06-12 12:55:18 PM

ExperianScaresCthulhu:
so basically the medical part of medical marijuana is a joke, and is intended to be a joke, with only lip service to public health. mostly, it's just about folks wanting to get high on something the same way the same folks would get a buzz from alcohol or get a feeling of 'urge sated' from tobacco?


Yes, the "medical" part is one of the biggest farces going. Stoners rallied behind the "think of the sick people" slogans while doing the nudge-nudge/wink-wink - one of the most disingenuous campaigns run - and that's no small feat.

I might respect stoners more if they had some balls and got the real law changed, and not some pansy-assed dodge.
 
2012-06-12 01:05:27 PM

bhcompy: So let's accept your hypothesis, does this mean that Mexican drug cartels don't exist?


The drug cartels only exist because drugs are illegal. That said 90% of the drug trade is pot. Legalize pot and 90% of the drug trade disappears and with it 90% of the costs of enforcement.
 
2012-06-12 01:07:03 PM
The War On Drugs(tm) leads to an increase in crime.

Taking some of the supply of one drug out of the War is only going to reduce it.

/ where is OBVIOUS tag?
 
2012-06-12 01:12:16 PM

AllUpInYa: ExperianScaresCthulhu:
so basically the medical part of medical marijuana is a joke, and is intended to be a joke, with only lip service to public health. mostly, it's just about folks wanting to get high on something the same way the same folks would get a buzz from alcohol or get a feeling of 'urge sated' from tobacco?


Yes, the "medical" part is one of the biggest farces going. Stoners rallied behind the "think of the sick people" slogans while doing the nudge-nudge/wink-wink - one of the most disingenuous campaigns run - and that's no small feat.

I might respect stoners more if they had some balls and got the real law changed, and not some pansy-assed dodge.


THIS.
 
2012-06-12 01:14:37 PM

AllUpInYa: I might respect stoners more if they had some balls and got the real law changed, and not some pansy-assed dodge.


You don't have to be a "stoner" to support the legalization of marijuana.

That said the notion that you could go from complete prohibition to complete legalization on something as taboo as drugs is absurd. You have to do thinks like this incrementally to demonstrate to people things that they think are false - like the study found in TFA.
 
2012-06-12 01:20:13 PM

The Homer Tax: AllUpInYa: I might respect stoners more if they had some balls and got the real law changed, and not some pansy-assed dodge.

You don't have to be a "stoner" to support the legalization of marijuana.

That said the notion that you could go from complete prohibition to complete legalization on something as taboo as drugs is absurd. You have to do thinks like this incrementally to demonstrate to people things that they think are false - like the study found in TFA.


This.
 
2012-06-12 01:25:35 PM

AllUpInYa: ExperianScaresCthulhu:
so basically the medical part of medical marijuana is a joke, and is intended to be a joke, with only lip service to public health. mostly, it's just about folks wanting to get high on something the same way the same folks would get a buzz from alcohol or get a feeling of 'urge sated' from tobacco?


Yes, the "medical" part is one of the biggest farces going. Stoners rallied behind the "think of the sick people" slogans while doing the nudge-nudge/wink-wink - one of the most disingenuous campaigns run - and that's no small feat.

I might respect stoners more if they had some balls and got the real law changed, and not some pansy-assed dodge.


Good thing you don't smoke weed or that big straw man of yours could catch on fire, then you'd have to address the issue honestly.
 
2012-06-12 01:35:55 PM

Digital Communist: AllUpInYa: ExperianScaresCthulhu:
so basically the medical part of medical marijuana is a joke, and is intended to be a joke, with only lip service to public health. mostly, it's just about folks wanting to get high on something the same way the same folks would get a buzz from alcohol or get a feeling of 'urge sated' from tobacco?


Yes, the "medical" part is one of the biggest farces going. Stoners rallied behind the "think of the sick people" slogans while doing the nudge-nudge/wink-wink - one of the most disingenuous campaigns run - and that's no small feat.

I might respect stoners more if they had some balls and got the real law changed, and not some pansy-assed dodge.

Good thing you don't smoke weed or that big straw man of yours could catch on fire, then you'd have to address the issue honestly.


Digital Communist: AllUpInYa: ExperianScaresCthulhu:
so basically the medical part of medical marijuana is a joke, and is intended to be a joke, with only lip service to public health. mostly, it's just about folks wanting to get high on something the same way the same folks would get a buzz from alcohol or get a feeling of 'urge sated' from tobacco?


Yes, the "medical" part is one of the biggest farces going. Stoners rallied behind the "think of the sick people" slogans while doing the nudge-nudge/wink-wink - one of the most disingenuous campaigns run - and that's no small feat.

I might respect stoners more if they had some balls and got the real law changed, and not some pansy-assed dodge.

Good thing you don't smoke weed or that big straw man of yours could catch on fire, then you'd have to address the issue honestly.


Actually, I have smoked weed and would have accepted the repercussions if I was caught. AND
I would be in favor of legalization.
I wouldn't posterize some sick people and start moaning "think of the sick people" just so that I
would be able to sneak my way around the law to get high.
 
2012-06-12 01:44:11 PM

knobmaker: Garm: I guess it depends on the management or the locale... We had one for a while until the Feds mashed their dinner. The strip mall it was in was marginal already. It had a CVS which was safe enough and a usual assortment of stores...Papa John's, Hollywood Video, BofA. Two of the stores were dollar stores. So not upscale by any means.

While the dispensary was there I would compare the folks shambling about as similar to a seedy Liquor Store. Cars got broken into, store windows were occasionally broken. Correlation vs causation, who knows, I live in a town full of assholes and this was probably just a convergence point. It shifted my opinion of dispensaries quite a bit though.

I'd really like to believe you, because you sound so concerned.


Oh, I didn't make an absolute statement that dispensaries are good or bad. Must be a concern troll... I think MM should be legal, hell, even without a card I don't have a problem with legalization. The issue from what I saw is that dispensaries aren't the gentle hippy oases some would like you to believe. If the dispensary or property management doesn't handle the location properly, its a blight.
 
2012-06-12 01:50:28 PM

Garm: If the dispensary or property management doesn't handle the location properly, its a blight.


This can be said for any business and any property management entity.

If you don't handle your business and property properly, it can go to shiat. More at 11.
 
2012-06-12 01:50:55 PM
Subby,


Your a farking moron who has no real understanding of the difference between medical cannabis and marijuana. Please refrain from speaking in public, as what you typed as a headline was about as funny the Sandusky trial. How about this, you go DIAF, and leave medical cannabis to the professionals.


Believe it or not, not all people who use cannabis say "dude", "whoa", "man", or even have long hair. Quit being a piece of shiat that continues to stay the stereotypes in peoples minds instead of perpetuating the the stoner-lifestyle.
 
2012-06-12 01:59:55 PM

Krymson Tyde: Sounds like a winning plan. We should also have them in places where people who want wars live as well.


We do....Washington DC has a medical law.....We just need to get a dispensary next to the cafeteria, in the Capitol building..... No More preemptive war.
 
2012-06-12 02:01:00 PM

Alphakronik: Subby,


Your a farking moron who has no real understanding of the difference between medical cannabis and marijuana. Please refrain from speaking in public, as what you typed as a headline was about as funny the Sandusky trial. How about this, you go DIAF, and leave medical cannabis to the professionals.


Believe it or not, not all people who use cannabis say "dude", "whoa", "man", or even have long hair. Quit being a piece of shiat that continues to stay the stereotypes in peoples minds instead of perpetuating the the stoner-lifestyle.


Calm down, Bevis. You're ruining it.
 
2012-06-12 02:06:54 PM

gibbon1: bhcompy: So let's accept your hypothesis, does this mean that Mexican drug cartels don't exist?

The drug cartels only exist because drugs are illegal. That said 90% of the drug trade is pot. Legalize pot and 90% of the drug trade disappears and with it 90% of the costs of enforcement.


And with that 90% of the budget for enforcement, 90% of the jobs in enforcement...

No one really WANTS the cartels to go away because their existence gives police huge amounts of money and power.
 
2012-06-12 02:07:08 PM
kingmike.net
 
2012-06-12 02:10:54 PM

JackieRabbit: Alphakronik: Subby,


Your a farking moron who has no real understanding of the difference between medical cannabis and marijuana. Please refrain from speaking in public, as what you typed as a headline was about as funny the Sandusky trial. How about this, you go DIAF, and leave medical cannabis to the professionals.


Believe it or not, not all people who use cannabis say "dude", "whoa", "man", or even have long hair. Quit being a piece of shiat that continues to stay the stereotypes in peoples minds instead of perpetuating the the stoner-lifestyle.

Calm down, Bevis. You're ruining it.


Ruining it? fark that. It's people that continue to proliferate the stereotypes that are ruining it. Maybe if everyone who inhales came out of the closet as a active, and productive member of society instead of a lazy, good for nothing stoner we would stop having our friends and family arrested for simple possession.
 
2012-06-12 02:12:07 PM

gibbon1: Legalize pot and 90% of the drug trade disappears and with it 90% of the costs of enforcement.


OR, more likely, they will fill that 90% with harder drugs.
 
2012-06-12 02:15:11 PM
This again? They are practically on every corner here. That's right. Boulder.
 
2012-06-12 02:16:09 PM

AllUpInYa: OR, more likely, they will fill that 90% with harder drugs.


You're begging the question that there is exactly the same demand for marijuana as there is for "harder drugs."

You don't actually subscribe to the "Gateway Drug" theory, do you?
 
2012-06-12 02:23:32 PM

The Homer Tax: AllUpInYa: OR, more likely, they will fill that 90% with harder drugs.

You're begging the question that there is exactly the same demand for marijuana as there is for "harder drugs."

You don't actually subscribe to the "Gateway Drug" theory, do you?


More likely they'll just move in to smuggling prescription drugs and such because it targets the same young crowd with that little bit of disposable income, whereas coke, meth, etc is truly a different crowd.
 
2012-06-12 02:24:30 PM

AllUpInYa: gibbon1: Legalize pot and 90% of the drug trade disappears and with it 90% of the costs of enforcement.

OR, more likely, they will fill that 90% with harder drugs.


So? That's not a good reason to keep something harmless illegal.
 
2012-06-12 02:25:12 PM

AllUpInYa: gibbon1: Legalize pot and 90% of the drug trade disappears and with it 90% of the costs of enforcement.

OR, more likely, they will fill that 90% with harder drugs.


Interesting - even on Fark still see discredited slippery slope/gateway drug arguments repeated.

Easy enough to point out the fallacy to individuals like AllUpInYa, but shows that, as in a lot of other discussions, rational argument doesn't work to convince wider audience.

Will schools get round to teaching people how to think, and teach them about confirmation bias etc, and how to separate emotional from factual arguments?
 
2012-06-12 02:31:19 PM

The Homer Tax: AllUpInYa: OR, more likely, they will fill that 90% with harder drugs.

You're begging the question that there is exactly the same demand for marijuana as there is for "harder drugs."

You don't actually subscribe to the "Gateway Drug" theory, do you?


No, I subscribe to human nature; that once something becomes commonplace, people will move on towards something more. Examples would be deep-fried foods, caffeinated drinks.
Now, I'm no expert, but I would think that a weight of a powdered drug carries more profit than an equal weight of mj. Why, as a cartel member, wouldn't I look to keep my income by enticing people to my product?

I think it's incredibly naive, maybe even dangerously irresponsible, to even think that the drug problem goes away just because mj becomes legal.
 
2012-06-12 02:44:23 PM
At last, something I can comment on.
I live in Denver, in town. Actually pretty nice part of town.
Nice house, in nice part of high density old neighborhood.
West Wash Park, for those in the know.
I have 6 dispensaries within 1/4 mile radius of my house.
I have 1 on my actual block, and 1 that is a block away.
Only crime trouble we have are drunks walking home from the 15 restaurants and bars late at night, and stupid taggers once or twice a year.
Dispensary related crime isn't even a thing.
 
2012-06-12 02:58:57 PM
 
2012-06-12 03:04:39 PM

AllUpInYa: No, I subscribe to human nature; that once something becomes commonplace, people will move on towards something more. Examples would be deep-fried foods, caffeinated drinks.


That's not human nature. That's bullshiat.

AllUpInYa: I think it's incredibly naive, maybe even dangerously irresponsible, to even think that the drug problem goes away just because mj becomes legal.


Did anyone suggest as much? Good lord, you're like a walking logical fallacy. You've begged the question, used the slippery slope fallacy, and built a fantastic strawman. Sure there isn't a reductio ad absurdum that you want to throw in there as well?

You can't force people to do drugs, people do drugs because *people want to do drugs*. You don't "fix the drug problem" by having a "war on drugs," because that's just a war on people. People who think like you have been fighting the "war on drugs" for 50 farking years and where has it gotten you? A fat lot of nowhere.

You don't fix "the drug problem" by fighting drugs, you fix "the drug problem" by fighting addiction. The "drug problem" is a medical problem, not a criminal one. We tried it your way, it didn't work - the answer isn't to do the exact same thing only harder, it's to try something new.

And, so far, everywhere that has tried this different way, it's (shockingly) working out exactly like we told you it would.
 
2012-06-12 03:16:04 PM

The Homer Tax: AllUpInYa: No, I subscribe to human nature; that once something becomes commonplace, people will move on towards something more. Examples would be deep-fried foods, caffeinated drinks.

That's not human nature. That's bullshiat.

AllUpInYa: I think it's incredibly naive, maybe even dangerously irresponsible, to even think that the drug problem goes away just because mj becomes legal.

Did anyone suggest as much? Good lord, you're like a walking logical fallacy. You've begged the question, used the slippery slope fallacy, and built a fantastic strawman. Sure there isn't a reductio ad absurdum that you want to throw in there as well?

You can't force people to do drugs, people do drugs because *people want to do drugs*. You don't "fix the drug problem" by having a "war on drugs," because that's just a war on people. People who think like you have been fighting the "war on drugs" for 50 farking years and where has it gotten you? A fat lot of nowhere.

You don't fix "the drug problem" by fighting drugs, you fix "the drug problem" by fighting addiction. The "drug problem" is a medical problem, not a criminal one. We tried it your way, it didn't work - the answer isn't to do the exact same thing only harder, it's to try something new.

And, so far, everywhere that has tried this different way, it's (shockingly) working out exactly like we told you it would.


WOW, way to miss the whole point!
gibbon1: Legalize pot and 90% of the drug trade disappears and with it 90% of the costs of enforcement.
 
2012-06-12 03:22:06 PM

AllUpInYa: WOW, way to miss the whole point!


I'm missing nothing. Your argument is tired.

Remember when alcohol prohibition was overturned in this country? Did all of those organized crime syndicates just go into worse, more heinous avenues of crime? No. Many established political dynasties which still hold sway today. So, in a way "yes," but you see what I mean.

The point remains that continuing to fight the same failing "drug war" that has been ineffective for 50 years because of what Mexican Cartels may or may not do is silly. Decriminalize Marijuana and you free up the police to use their resources to fight actual crimes.

I'll be interested to see where you move the goalposts (ding!) to, though.
 
2012-06-12 03:22:25 PM

The Homer Tax: And, so far, everywhere that has tried this different way, it's (shockingly) working out exactly like we told you it would.


Agreed. See, Vancouver and Spain for examples. There's another one I'm missing, I'm sure of it.
 
2012-06-12 03:28:01 PM
Hey. I know you...

thegoldensombrero.com
 
2012-06-12 03:42:49 PM

The Homer Tax: AllUpInYa: WOW, way to miss the whole point!

I'm missing nothing. Your argument is tired.

Remember when alcohol prohibition was overturned in this country? Did all of those organized crime syndicates just go into worse, more heinous avenues of crime? No. Many established political dynasties which still hold sway today. So, in a way "yes," but you see what I mean.
.


Running drugs == running drugs, whether it's mj or cocaine.
They're going to give up drug routes into the US, and potential profits, just because their product is different.
 
2012-06-12 03:48:10 PM
I'm pretty sure that if they shut down the dispensary that is literally right next door to my house, that the neighborhood would still be ghetto without it.

My block: house-house-my house-dispensary-panaderia-liquor store

/csb
 
2012-06-12 03:49:20 PM
i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-06-12 03:54:32 PM
Don't forget Washington's I-502 this November as well.
 
2012-06-12 04:09:25 PM
I live fairly close to a light industrial area, where most of the "Medicinal Marijuana" dispensaries have decided to set up shop. Within about 10 minutes walking distance, there are at least 3 separate shops. There were 4 of them, but I think Fartbongo's Gestapo came in and closed one of them down.

The problem I have with the "Medicinal Marijuana" angle is the hypocrisy. I realize that they can't out and out legalize it because of the feds. But when every stoner can go get a "prescription" because their "hair hurts", I think it actually gives a black eye to the real medical benefits (my gramps, who thought very poorly of marijuana smokers, benefited before he died of tobacco related stomach cancer...).

I kid you not, I have seen this crap, and it infuriates me (SFW)

"Medicinal" indeed. Might as well have a guy out with a Viagra or Vicodin sign.

I don't smoke myself, but if a vote came up to legalize it, I would vote YES just to tax the hell out of it and cut off some of the money that the Mexican cartel's are making through either smuggling or growing here in the good old USofA (destroying public lands in the process). The laws are a joke anyways. Anyone who wants to get weed already does so. Might as well make some tax dollars off of it. And maybe if you could buy a pack of joints @ 7-11, there would be fewer shady dispensaries around.
 
2012-06-12 04:12:16 PM

AllUpInYa: Running drugs == running drugs, whether it's mj or cocaine.
They're going to give up drug routes into the US, and potential profits, just because their product is different.


They're not just going to "run drugs" into the US to do it. They're only going to do it if there is demand to meet supply that results in a price that makes the risk worth it.

That's why you're argument is silly. It's not like legalizing marijuana will create some sort of "drug vacuum" that needs to be filled with cocaine. This is where your entire argument breaks down.

Criminal organizations don't do what they do for the fark of it, they do what they do because it makes them money.
 
2012-06-12 04:13:32 PM

Khell: I live fairly close to a light industrial area, where most of the "Medicinal Marijuana" dispensaries have decided to set up shop. Within about 10 minutes walking distance, there are at least 3 separate shops. There were 4 of them, but I think Fartbongo's Gestapo came in and closed one of them down.

The problem I have with the "Medicinal Marijuana" angle is the hypocrisy. I realize that they can't out and out legalize it because of the feds. But when every stoner can go get a "prescription" because their "hair hurts", I think it actually gives a black eye to the real medical benefits (my gramps, who thought very poorly of marijuana smokers, benefited before he died of tobacco related stomach cancer...).

I kid you not, I have seen this crap, and it infuriates me (SFW)

"Medicinal" indeed. Might as well have a guy out with a Viagra or Vicodin sign.

I don't smoke myself, but if a vote came up to legalize it, I would vote YES just to tax the hell out of it and cut off some of the money that the Mexican cartel's are making through either smuggling or growing here in the good old USofA (destroying public lands in the process). The laws are a joke anyways. Anyone who wants to get weed already does so. Might as well make some tax dollars off of it. And maybe if you could buy a pack of joints @ 7-11, there would be fewer shady dispensaries around.


The problem is 7-11 would begin selling year old looseys in a bulk display. Weed should be treated better than that.
 
2012-06-12 04:16:53 PM

Alphakronik: JackieRabbit: Alphakronik: Subby,


Your a farking moron who has no real understanding of the difference between medical cannabis and marijuana. Please refrain from speaking in public, as what you typed as a headline was about as funny the Sandusky trial. How about this, you go DIAF, and leave medical cannabis to the professionals.


Believe it or not, not all people who use cannabis say "dude", "whoa", "man", or even have long hair. Quit being a piece of shiat that continues to stay the stereotypes in peoples minds instead of perpetuating the the stoner-lifestyle.

Calm down, Bevis. You're ruining it.

Ruining it? fark that. It's people that continue to proliferate the stereotypes that are ruining it. Maybe if everyone who inhales came out of the closet as a active, and productive member of society instead of a lazy, good for nothing stoner we would stop having our friends and family arrested for simple possession.


Subby was just having a little fun. So lighten up. And the stoner stereotype is more of a hollywood thing than anything else. Pot is mainstream and no one thinks much about it anymore. I know a lot of successful, professionals who indulge. I would myself if it weren't so damned hard to do. I don't have time to find a dealer and keep up with it all. But reefer will be legal one day. Besides, as a friend of mine once said: "pot is an old man's drug."
 
2012-06-12 04:17:03 PM

Khell: The problem I have with the "Medicinal Marijuana" angle is the hypocrisy. I realize that they can't out and out legalize it because of the feds. But when every stoner can go get a "prescription" because their "hair hurts", I think it actually gives a black eye to the real medical benefits (my gramps, who thought very poorly of marijuana smokers, benefited before he died of tobacco related stomach cancer...).


FWIW, that's not really "hypocrisy." No one's actually contradicting themselves by advocating for medical marijuana. They're just not being entirely honest about the intentions, but they're doing so because, as was previously mentioned, the only way to get people like your grandpa to understand that marijuana isn't some sort of devil plant that's going to make white women go crazy and run away with jazz musicians is to give them some sort of plausible dependability and actually demonstrate that the world's not going to end if people smoke weed.

It's silly that we even have to do things like this, but we do, because people really, really care when other people do things that they wouldn't do themselves.
 
2012-06-12 04:43:19 PM

The Homer Tax:
That's why you're argument is silly. It's not like legalizing marijuana will create some sort of "drug vacuum" that needs to be filled with cocaine. This is where your entire argument breaks down.


And I think you're wrong, here.. It's human nature to want bigger, better, faster, riskier, more exclusive .... whatever.
When mj becomes commonplace, there will be the "grass is greener" attitude towards drugs that offer a stronger/different effect, and this whole cycle will happen all over again. So claiming that legalizing mj will result in some huge savings to society, or economically, isn't realistic.
 
2012-06-12 05:19:29 PM
They've been know to be linked to an increase in disc golf playing.
 
2012-06-12 05:25:00 PM

Expolaris: [i46.tinypic.com image 514x287]

I've loved Jon Stewart's comparison on the Daily Show the past few days. Just shows how ridiculously out of wack out priorities have gotten. For those who didn't see the show. It's a $200 fine for serving a 22 ounce coke, while a $100 fine for being caught with an ounce of weed in NY.

We've become convinced that policing half the issues while gracefully pushing the others off to the side like they don't matter will save us from our own mistakes.


Well isn't that what the government's there for? To protect us from ourselves?
:)
 
2012-06-12 10:07:03 PM
AllUpInYa


And I think you're wrong, here.. It's human nature to want bigger, better, faster, riskier, more exclusive .... whatever.
When mj becomes commonplace, there will be the "grass is greener" attitude towards drugs that offer a stronger/different effect, and this whole cycle will happen all over again. So claiming that legalizing mj will result in some huge savings to society, or economically, isn't realistic.


...you have brown eyes.

So then the next logical conclusion is that the only reason you don't do heroin is because it is illegal. Right?

See? Bullsh*t.
 
2012-06-12 10:41:03 PM
LMAO, this headline sounds exactly like the sort of plan some of the potheads I've known would think is totally plausible.
But, like, the government is making too much money on war, or something, so itt'l never happen.

Lol.

I'm totally for decriminalization btw, but those hopelessly smoke-addled types I knew in HS and college are pathetically farking hilarious.
 
2012-06-13 08:19:38 AM

busy chillin': AllUpInYa


And I think you're wrong, here.. It's human nature to want bigger, better, faster, riskier, more exclusive .... whatever.
When mj becomes commonplace, there will be the "grass is greener" attitude towards drugs that offer a stronger/different effect, and this whole cycle will happen all over again. So claiming that legalizing mj will result in some huge savings to society, or economically, isn't realistic.

...you have brown eyes.

So then the next logical conclusion is that the only reason you don't do heroin is because it is illegal. Right?

See? Bullsh*t.


if pot was illegal there would be an INCREASE in bath salt users. cause the high isn't that great for jacking off. and they want something similar to amphetamines to make them "hornier"
 
Displayed 96 of 96 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report