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.

(Seattle Times)   Right now three states are trying to legalize marijuana, and what happens the morning after Election Day is anybody's guess   (seattletimes.com) divider line 106
    More: Interesting, election days, marijuana legalization, Liquor Control Board, marijuana growers, quality controls, marijuana  
•       •       •

9084 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Sep 2012 at 6:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-23 09:15:38 AM
My state is doing something right? Holy crap. heh... Never thought I'd see the day.
 
2012-09-23 09:15:43 AM

qsblues: I have absolutely no problem with legalizing weed. I used to puff bales of it back in the day. It's a harmless recreational drug. My deal is, being a recovering alcoholic, that this stuff IS legal, and should be under more scrutiny. The fact that the gubment makes millions off of taxes on it, and BILLIONS off of incarcerating casual weed smokers, means that it just plain won't happen. But, people that drive while stoned still get into wrecks; much less than drunk drivers, but it still happens.

I have no issue with what people do in the privacy of their own homes. My wife smokes weed, to my detriment, since I'm in recovery and have no support from her whatsoever. I told her not to bring it in the house, and she does anyway, and goes out to smoke as well. She's driving while impaired, and I have a serious problem with that, being as I have 2 DUI's under my belt. I had to get legal action to stop her from driving with the kids while she was stoned, since "our kids are friends with their kids". I called bullshiat, and got a lawyer. Bottom line is, if you want to get high, by all means, have at it. But if you're in a relationship with someone in recovery and still want to get high, you are doing SERIOUS damage.

/end rant


So you have an addiction problem and it bothers you someone is using a non-addictive substance?
 
2012-09-23 09:28:02 AM

His Sonshine: ...But we don't need your legalized drugs messing up our kids.


i911.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-23 09:29:52 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: m2313: Jon iz teh kewl: m2313: Real Women Drink Akvavit: How timely an article! We've got about a month or so until harvest in the Emerald Triangle, which isn't too terribly far from me. I'm not a pot smoker, but I do have some problems with my back and hip from decades of mosh pits and skateboard parks. I'd love to get my hands on some of the "shake" (I think that's what they call it) and experiment with cannabis butter. I'm a wonderful cook, so the biggie would be what to make first once I got the butter part nailed. Hmmm....

Ahhh dude, no.
"Shake" is the cruddy little bits left at the bottom of the bag. It's weed crumbs. Usually stems and seeds with little THC content. Although if you're good at rolling, you can make it useful.
I thought about looking for trimwork/gave the idea some consideration once but I didn't have a card, prefer not getting into shady biz, and I wasn't going to hitch up and down the 101 endlessly looking for an in, especially after it got so blown up.

[s3.amazonaws.com image 480x360]

Why is there a phone photoshopped into the picture?

[sharetv.org image 400x300]


She is talking about harvest shake. The word eveolved from the word "Chaff" and refers to the small leaves trimmed off of the plant when buds are manicured. Emerald Triangle buds rarely have any seeds.
 
2012-09-23 09:40:50 AM

shirtsbyeric: Jon iz teh kewl: m2313: Jon iz teh kewl: m2313: Real Women Drink Akvavit: How timely an article! We've got about a month or so until harvest in the Emerald Triangle, which isn't too terribly far from me. I'm not a pot smoker, but I do have some problems with my back and hip from decades of mosh pits and skateboard parks. I'd love to get my hands on some of the "shake" (I think that's what they call it) and experiment with cannabis butter. I'm a wonderful cook, so the biggie would be what to make first once I got the butter part nailed. Hmmm....

Ahhh dude, no.
"Shake" is the cruddy little bits left at the bottom of the bag. It's weed crumbs. Usually stems and seeds with little THC content. Although if you're good at rolling, you can make it useful.
I thought about looking for trimwork/gave the idea some consideration once but I didn't have a card, prefer not getting into shady biz, and I wasn't going to hitch up and down the 101 endlessly looking for an in, especially after it got so blown up.

[s3.amazonaws.com image 480x360]

Why is there a phone photoshopped into the picture?

[sharetv.org image 400x300]

She is talking about harvest shake. The word eveolved from the word "Chaff" and refers to the small leaves trimmed off of the plant when buds are manicured. Emerald Triangle buds rarely have any seeds.


not my fault i think of ice cream when i think of marijuana
 
2012-09-23 10:02:21 AM
The alcohol lobby says "not so much" and the DEA says "gotcha". Get it?
 
2012-09-23 10:04:47 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Hobodeluxe: I were in a battleground state I'd have to vote Obama. That's who I sent money to.

I don't give money to politicians. Especially ones that say they are going to do something for me.


1,000 stoned K-Street lobbyists giggle in approval.
 
2012-09-23 10:18:14 AM

Hobodeluxe: Girion47: Hell I'd be happy if the DEA would reschedule marijuana, I've yet to see a good reason for it to be schedule I

there's another rescheduling hearing set for Oct 16th. I wouldn't hold my breath though


During a presidential election? Yeah, like that's gonna happen.
 
2012-09-23 10:19:22 AM

qsblues: I have absolutely no problem with legalizing weed. I used to puff bales of it back in the day. It's a harmless recreational drug. My deal is, being a recovering alcoholic, that this stuff IS legal, and should be under more scrutiny. The fact that the gubment makes millions off of taxes on it, and BILLIONS off of incarcerating casual weed smokers, means that it just plain won't happen. But, people that drive while stoned still get into wrecks; much less than drunk drivers, but it still happens.

I have no issue with what people do in the privacy of their own homes. My wife smokes weed, to my detriment, since I'm in recovery and have no support from her whatsoever. I told her not to bring it in the house, and she does anyway, and goes out to smoke as well. She's driving while impaired, and I have a serious problem with that, being as I have 2 DUI's under my belt. I had to get legal action to stop her from driving with the kids while she was stoned, since "our kids are friends with their kids". I called bullshiat, and got a lawyer. Bottom line is, if you want to get high, by all means, have at it. But if you're in a relationship with someone in recovery and still want to get high, you are doing SERIOUS damage.

/end rant


You were at the point where you either had to or wanted to stop that behaviour. She's not.

Driving the kids around while toasted is obviously not a good thing, I think we can all agree on that.

It definitely makes it more difficult to quit a habit or behaviour when the person you live with is still living that lifestyle, but the "I'm quitting, so now you have to too" ultimatum is never going to work. The lightbulb has to want to change.
 
2012-09-23 10:20:29 AM
"President America, a man in Washington is legally smoking a joint."

Yes, I predict Washington will look like Madagascar if it happens.
 
2012-09-23 10:30:04 AM
seattletimes.com

Wait...this guy's *against* legalization? Looks like he just put down his own pipe.
 
2012-09-23 10:33:38 AM

Girion47: So you have an addiction problem and it bothers you someone is using a non-addictive substance?


Anyone who thinks this has no idea about substance abuse and addictive behavior. ANYTHING can be habit forming and addictive, from surfing the web to sex to fill in the blank. If it negatively impacts your life or the life of others, it qualifies as addictive behavior.

Soulcatcher: You were at the point where you either had to or wanted to stop that behaviour. She's not.

Driving the kids around while toasted is obviously not a good thing, I think we can all agree on that.

It definitely makes it more difficult to quit a habit or behaviour when the person you live with is still living that lifestyle, but the "I'm quitting, so now you have to too" ultimatum is never going to work. The lightbulb has to want to change.


I agree. But the lightbulb pointing to the candle and saying, "You change, I'll stay the same." is not going to help matters much, either.
 
2012-09-23 10:36:42 AM
I'm for legalization of weed nationwide. Doing it on a state by state basis is a start though. I don't see the feds leaving Washington alone. Look what Obama's DEA is doing to the legal medical marijuana shops in Cali despite originally saying they would be left alone. I'm for states rights on this issue if the feds wont change the national classification of pot, but then again I'm for states rights on a lot of things.

/doesn't partake
 
2012-09-23 10:40:38 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: but what about employers that demand that employees pass random drug testss?


Probably the same as what happens with, say, healthcare companies that ban consumption of tobacco by employees--you get fired or at the very least get to go to a mandatory "Quit Smoking" course.

(If marijuana became legal and taxable, you'd still have at least some industries that explicitly ban its use whilst on the job or even banning employees from using it at all. Most "CDL jobs" require abstinence from alcohol 24 hours before a run, for example, and it's becoming increasingly common for healthcare companies to ban use of tobacco products altogether--and some even go to the point of "beyond piss tests" to make sure of this.)

marijuana makes u stupid so u can't fly a plane correctly.

You'd be really, really shocked to find what all does bugger up one's perception and makes one "unable to fly a plane correctly"--a surprising number of OTC medications are actually prohibited 24 to 72 hours before flight, including Zyrtec and Actifed and Benadryl (a partial list is here--one of the more surprising ones is that Accutane is a disqualifier for night-flying, presumably because it's a retinoin and thus can interfere with night vision).

Even if marijuana were legalised over all fifty states tomorrow (unlikely--hell, I live in a state where fully half the counties haven't legalised alcohol post-Prohibition, and counties are only starting to go "moist" and/or allow Sunday sales because they realise they're haemorrhaging tax revenue from restaurants refusing to set up shop), it's quite likely you'd still very much have not only the DOT rules in place that prohibit taking a lot of medications for commercial pilots/drivers/conductors/etc...but in addition, you'd still have the laws in place in a lot of states that ban "driving while impaired" on ANY substance, not just alcohol. (In some rare cases, people have actually gotten DWIs from prescription medications and even as a result of going into insulin shock--legality of the substance isn't the determining factor, it's being an impaired driver.)

and makes you see demons

...OK, you really should be checking your source and shouldn't be smoking the "wet" stuff or the stuff mixed with bath salts :D

In all seriousness, the only cases I've heard of--and I've actually read medical journals for funsies on this--involving folks on marijuana seeing "demons" usually ended up with those persons having an underlying psychotic mental disorder with religious hallucinations. I can also state (via experience with a now-deceased relative who likely had a severe undiagnosed mental disorder) that such "religious ideation" and "seeing demons" is quite possible even in teetotalers; interestingly, probably a factor underappreciated would be the fact that persons with psychotic disorders can sometimes trend towards hyperreligiosity (and that at least some coercive religious groups are known to explicitly target the mentally ill for recruitment) and it's precisely those people who would be more likely to see "demonic manifestations" in any sort of psychotic break.

Also underappreciated--it is not unknown and actually fairly common for persons with undiagnosed or even diagnosed-but-untreated mental illness to "self-medicate" with recreational pharmaceuticals, particularly in the US (where the status of mental health care ranges from "medeival" to "functionally nonexistent"). Some of the investigation re the use of marijuana in treatment of PTSD actually comes from observation of this self-medication, in fact.

tl;dr version--if someone's seeing "demons" while on weed and said weed hasn't been laced with something known to be a strong dissociative or hallucinogen, they probably had something Not Quite Right upstairs to begin with. This is marijuana, not "bath salts" :D
 
2012-09-23 10:46:58 AM
I don't think we're really being helped with the "it's from the earth, man" arguments, either.

I say we grow up and admit that sometimes adults do things purely for the pleasure of it.

Beyond that, I'd note that cannabis has a remarkable safety record for non-toxicity, and ask just what exactly is my goverment's compelling interest that necessitates restraining this particular liberty.
 
2012-09-23 10:51:39 AM

Igor Jakovsky: I'm for legalization of weed nationwide. Doing it on a state by state basis is a start though. I don't see the feds leaving Washington alone. Look what Obama's DEA is doing to the legal medical marijuana shops in Cali despite originally saying they would be left alone. I'm for states rights on this issue if the feds wont change the national classification of pot, but then again I'm for states rights on a lot of things.


As I understand it, this also mirrors the way alcohol prohibition was defeated -- states rebelled, citizens refused to convict.

Jury Nullification is your right. Don't let any judge tell you otherwise.
 
2012-09-23 10:56:05 AM

His Sonshine: Well I know that out in Colorado they're having a vote to "free the weed" man. I know this because my brother in law lives out there and I'm pretty sure he is into the lifestyle just judging by his clothing and musical preferences. My wife and I went out to Denver over the Summer and we couldn't believe the things we saw regarding marijuana. There are literally stores everywhere selling it. We even saw a girl in a bikini with marijuana leaves for the top and she was holding a sign pointing to a store selling it. We still laugh calling it the "mile high city". Weird people out there. But we don't need your legalized drugs messing up our kids.


heh, heh, heh, you sound naive. *checks profile* yep.

//Feel free to stay the hell out of Colorado if you don't like it. We have enough authoritarian, right wing nuts, thanks.
 
2012-09-23 11:37:48 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: I'm voting for real change.


This.
 
2012-09-23 11:38:44 AM
i.crackedcdn.com
 
2012-09-23 12:01:19 PM

glassgnost: I don't think we're really being helped with the "it's from the earth, man" arguments, either.

I say we grow up and admit that sometimes adults do things purely for the pleasure of it.

Beyond that, I'd note that cannabis has a remarkable safety record for non-toxicity, and ask just what exactly is my goverment's compelling interest that necessitates restraining this particular liberty.


Don't tell anyone I told you this, but hemp is a key ingredient in anti-radar paint. They've known about it since the '20s.
 
2012-09-23 12:37:39 PM
F*cking hell, just legalize it already.
 
2012-09-23 12:38:41 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: but what about employers that demand that employees pass random drug testss?

marijuana makes u stupid so u can't fly a plane correctly. and makes you see demons


I don't see legalization of recreational MJ affecting drug-free employers. They can already refuse to hire tobacco users.

The ADA argument for medical MJ use doesn't hold water, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Link The ADA does not protect employees who are using a drug that is illegal under federal law, regardless of state law.
 
2012-09-23 12:40:05 PM

His Sonshine: Well I know that out in Colorado they're having a vote to "free the weed" man. I know this because my brother in law lives out there and I'm pretty sure he is into the lifestyle just judging by his clothing and musical preferences. My wife and I went out to Denver over the Summer and we couldn't believe the things we saw regarding marijuana. There are literally stores everywhere selling it. We even saw a girl in a bikini with marijuana leaves for the top and she was holding a sign pointing to a store selling it. We still laugh calling it the "mile high city". Weird people out there. But we don't need your legalized drugs messing up our kids.


Yeah, better to put them on Prozac, Ritalin, Adderall, Effexor, or Xanax than that evil evil weed.
 
2012-09-23 12:42:51 PM

Girion47: qsblues: I have absolutely no problem with legalizing weed. I used to puff bales of it back in the day. It's a harmless recreational drug. My deal is, being a recovering alcoholic, that this stuff IS legal, and should be under more scrutiny. The fact that the gubment makes millions off of taxes on it, and BILLIONS off of incarcerating casual weed smokers, means that it just plain won't happen. But, people that drive while stoned still get into wrecks; much less than drunk drivers, but it still happens.

I have no issue with what people do in the privacy of their own homes. My wife smokes weed, to my detriment, since I'm in recovery and have no support from her whatsoever. I told her not to bring it in the house, and she does anyway, and goes out to smoke as well. She's driving while impaired, and I have a serious problem with that, being as I have 2 DUI's under my belt. I had to get legal action to stop her from driving with the kids while she was stoned, since "our kids are friends with their kids". I called bullshiat, and got a lawyer. Bottom line is, if you want to get high, by all means, have at it. But if you're in a relationship with someone in recovery and still want to get high, you are doing SERIOUS damage.

/end rant

So you have an addiction problem and it bothers you someone is using a non-addictive substance?


If using a substance is more important to you than your personal relationships, it's addictive and you're an addict.
 
2012-09-23 12:48:01 PM

Great Porn Dragon: Jon iz teh kewl: but what about employers that demand that employees pass random drug testss?

Probably the same as what happens with, say, healthcare companies that ban consumption of tobacco by employees--you get fired or at the very least get to go to a mandatory "Quit Smoking" course.

(If marijuana became legal and taxable, you'd still have at least some industries that explicitly ban its use whilst on the job or even banning employees from using it at all. Most "CDL jobs" require abstinence from alcohol 24 hours before a run, for example, and it's becoming increasingly common for healthcare companies to ban use of tobacco products altogether--and some even go to the point of "beyond piss tests" to make sure of this.)

marijuana makes u stupid so u can't fly a plane correctly.

You'd be really, really shocked to find what all does bugger up one's perception and makes one "unable to fly a plane correctly"--a surprising number of OTC medications are actually prohibited 24 to 72 hours before flight, including Zyrtec and Actifed and Benadryl (a partial list is here--one of the more surprising ones is that Accutane is a disqualifier for night-flying, presumably because it's a retinoin and thus can interfere with night vision).

Even if marijuana were legalised over all fifty states tomorrow (unlikely--hell, I live in a state where fully half the counties haven't legalised alcohol post-Prohibition, and counties are only starting to go "moist" and/or allow Sunday sales because they realise they're haemorrhaging tax revenue from restaurants refusing to set up shop), it's quite likely you'd still very much have not only the DOT rules in place that prohibit taking a lot of medications for commercial pilots/drivers/conductors/etc...but in addition, you'd still have the laws in place in a lot of states that ban "driving while impaired" on ANY substance, not just alcohol. (In some rare cases, people have actually gotten DWIs from prescription medications and even as a result of going into insulin shock--legality of the substance isn't the determining factor, it's being an impaired driver.)

and makes you see demons

...OK, you really should be checking your source and shouldn't be smoking the "wet" stuff or the stuff mixed with bath salts :D

In all seriousness, the only cases I've heard of--and I've actually read medical journals for funsies on this--involving folks on marijuana seeing "demons" usually ended up with those persons having an underlying psychotic mental disorder with religious hallucinations. I can also state (via experience with a now-deceased relative who likely had a severe undiagnosed mental disorder) that such "religious ideation" and "seeing demons" is quite possible even in teetotalers; interestingly, probably a factor underappreciated would be the fact that persons with psychotic disorders can sometimes trend towards hyperreligiosity (and that at least some coercive religious groups are known to explicitly target the mentally ill for recruitment) and it's precisely those people who would be more likely to see "demonic manifestations" in any sort of psychotic break.

Also underappreciated--it is not unknown and actually fairly common for persons with undiagnosed or even diagnosed-but-untreated mental illness to "self-medicate" with recreational pharmaceuticals, particularly in the US (where the status of mental health care ranges from "medeival" to "functionally nonexistent"). Some of the investigation re the use of marijuana in treatment of PTSD actually comes from observation of this self-medication, in fact.

tl;dr version--if someone's seeing "demons" while on weed and said weed hasn't been laced with something known to be a strong dissociative or hallucinogen, they probably had something Not Quite Right upstairs to begin with. This is marijuana, not "bath salts" :D


Nicely written. You make a good point about religiosity. My eldest sibling is schizophrenic and gets very religious when she has her mental breakdowns. She will spend hours playing hymns on the piano. And her hallucinations are auditory and visual. She sees demons and cages of bone, etc. She said the devil was after her.
 
2012-09-23 01:12:04 PM

Real Women Drink Akvavit: How timely an article! We've got about a month or so until harvest in the Emerald Triangle, which isn't too terribly far from me. I'm not a pot smoker, but I do have some problems with my back and hip from decades of mosh pits and skateboard parks. I'd love to get my hands on some of the "shake" (I think that's what they call it) and experiment with cannabis butter. I'm a wonderful cook, so the biggie would be what to make first once I got the butter part nailed. Hmmm....


Just harvested yesterday.

His Sonshine: Well I know that out in Colorado they're having a vote to "free the weed" man. I know this because my brother in law lives out there and I'm pretty sure he is into the lifestyle just judging by his clothing and musical preferences. My wife and I went out to Denver over the Summer and we couldn't believe the things we saw regarding marijuana. There are literally stores everywhere selling it. We even saw a girl in a bikini with marijuana leaves for the top and she was holding a sign pointing to a store selling it. We still laugh calling it the "mile high city". Weird people out there. But we don't need your legalized drugs messing up our kids.


Try Colorado Springs where medicinal marijuana shops out-number McD's outlets. I was about to get a card to buy - which is a process of going to a Dr. - the "store" has an in house doctor, of course, to whom they refer you. Of course if you even show up you are deemed "needing" medicinal...

Then, you have to mail the Dr.-signed application to some CO authority (forget whom) and pay ~$200 and then wait for the card to arrive! I was going through the process (had a Dr'. appt scheduled) but then had to move out of state. Bummer.
 
2012-09-23 01:38:52 PM
"The idea that a state can collect funds, collect taxes off an illegal activity - I can't imagine that would be allowed." [ said Kevin Sabet, a former senior drug-policy adviser in the Obama administration]

Come to my state, Kevin Sabet, and tell me that the actions of my state legislature are "illegal" and I will treat you the same as a Xhosa tribal chief after you tell him his local practice of female circumcision is illegal. You represent a foreign power that presumes to add to its domain rights and privileges specifically denied to that power by its Constitution and I, along with my state militia, will treat you like any other insurgent.
 
2012-09-23 02:15:07 PM

Real Women Drink Akvavit: How timely an article! We've got about a month or so until harvest in the Emerald Triangle, which isn't too terribly far from me. I'm not a pot smoker, but I do have some problems with my back and hip from decades of mosh pits and skateboard parks. I'd love to get my hands on some of the "shake" (I think that's what they call it) and experiment with cannabis butter. I'm a wonderful cook, so the biggie would be what to make first once I got the butter part nailed. Hmmm....


A friend of mine introduced me to an odd combination a few months ago. Get a bottle of good vodka, toss in a LOT of shake and let it set for a month or 2. It wasn't the same as smoking it, but it was a good time.
 
2012-09-23 02:52:39 PM

His Sonshine: Well I know that out in Colorado they're having a vote to "free the weed" man. I know this because my brother in law lives out there and I'm pretty sure he is into the lifestyle just judging by his clothing and musical preferences. My wife and I went out to Denver over the Summer and we couldn't believe the things we saw regarding marijuana. There are literally stores everywhere selling it. We even saw a girl in a bikini with marijuana leaves for the top and she was holding a sign pointing to a store selling it. We still laugh calling it the "mile high city". Weird people out there. But we don't need your legalized drugs messing up our kids.


Then do your job as a parent and properly educate them on the matter.
To quote Ron Paul: "I need the government to take care of me: I don't want to use heroin, so I need these laws!"
 
2012-09-23 02:59:49 PM

Great Porn Dragon: a state where fully half the counties haven't legalised alcohol post-Prohibition,



There's states where alcohol is still illegal? What state is that? If you bring it in from somewhere else and drink in your home, are you subject to arrest?
 
2012-09-23 03:04:35 PM

WeenerGord: Great Porn Dragon: a state where fully half the counties haven't legalised alcohol post-Prohibition,


There's states where alcohol is still illegal? What state is that? If you bring it in from somewhere else and drink in your home, are you subject to arrest?


Lots of counties ban the sale of alcohol still. You can possess it, but noone in the county can make or sell it.
 
2012-09-23 03:04:56 PM
Kevin Sabet is a fear-mongering, government teet sucking chode, as is all the other drug warriors before and after him.

The government has no right telling us what we can and can't do with our own bodies.
 
2012-09-23 03:47:48 PM

Sgygus: what happens the morning after ...

The respective state legislatures pass laws to delay, obstruct, and if possible repeal, the will of the people.


bingo!

this is a country where adults cannot smoke cigarettes in a bar. good luck, folks.
 
2012-09-23 04:13:14 PM

Great Porn Dragon: Jon iz teh kewl: but what about employers that demand that employees pass random drug testss?

Probably the same as what happens with, say, healthcare companies that ban consumption of tobacco by employees--you get fired or at the very least get to go to a mandatory "Quit Smoking" course.

(If marijuana became legal and taxable, you'd still have at least some industries that explicitly ban its use whilst on the job or even banning employees from using it at all. Most "CDL jobs" require abstinence from alcohol 24 hours before a run, for example, and it's becoming increasingly common for healthcare companies to ban use of tobacco products altogether--and some even go to the point of "beyond piss tests" to make sure of this.)

marijuana makes u stupid so u can't fly a plane correctly.

You'd be really, really shocked to find what all does bugger up one's perception and makes one "unable to fly a plane correctly"--a surprising number of OTC medications are actually prohibited 24 to 72 hours before flight, including Zyrtec and Actifed and Benadryl (a partial list is here--one of the more surprising ones is that Accutane is a disqualifier for night-flying, presumably because it's a retinoin and thus can interfere with night vision).

Even if marijuana were legalised over all fifty states tomorrow (unlikely--hell, I live in a state where fully half the counties haven't legalised alcohol post-Prohibition, and counties are only starting to go "moist" and/or allow Sunday sales because they realise they're haemorrhaging tax revenue from restaurants refusing to set up shop), it's quite likely you'd still very much have not only the DOT rules in place that prohibit taking a lot of medications for commercial pilots/drivers/conductors/etc...but in addition, you'd still have the laws in place in a lot of states that ban "driving while impaired" on ANY substance, not just alcohol. (In some rare cases, people have actually gotten DWIs from prescription medications and even as a res ...


Jesus saw demons. prove me wrong
 
2012-09-23 04:21:11 PM

Great Porn Dragon: (and that at least some coercive religious groups are known to explicitly target the mentally ill for recruitment)



bignanime.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-23 04:44:15 PM
I think the 'growers register with the state government' part is just idiotic on the face of it. Providing full documentation of how you're committing a federal offense? Sounds like what got Stringer pissed off. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGo5bxWy21g&feature=player_detailpage#t =76s
 
2012-09-23 05:28:57 PM
Jon is teh kewl
Jesus saw demons. prove me wrong

Did you get that from a first hand account or a document written by someone that never met Jesus and has been edited for almost two millenia?

Peer Reviewed evidence or GTFO
 
2012-09-23 05:34:56 PM
Gonna legally harvest this tomorrow. Goddamn I love Colorado.
farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2012-09-23 05:52:01 PM

REO-Weedwagon: Gonna legally harvest this tomorrow. Goddamn I love Colorado.


Not gonna lie. I'm pretty jealous.

Gonna move there as soon as I can sell my house, which is really unlikely to happen anytime soon. fark. :(
 
2012-09-23 07:54:20 PM
Driving while high is easy if you have been smoking for years. Everyone worried about it is either a square, or an inexperienced, irresponsible twat who got blasted, tried driving around, panicked and assumed that must be how everyone who drives while high feels.

BarkingUnicorn: Girion47: qsblues: I have absolutely no problem with legalizing weed. I used to puff bales of it back in the day. It's a harmless recreational drug. My deal is, being a recovering alcoholic, that this stuff IS legal, and should be under more scrutiny. The fact that the gubment makes millions off of taxes on it, and BILLIONS off of incarcerating casual weed smokers, means that it just plain won't happen. But, people that drive while stoned still get into wrecks; much less than drunk drivers, but it still happens.

I have no issue with what people do in the privacy of their own homes. My wife smokes weed, to my detriment, since I'm in recovery and have no support from her whatsoever. I told her not to bring it in the house, and she does anyway, and goes out to smoke as well. She's driving while impaired, and I have a serious problem with that, being as I have 2 DUI's under my belt. I had to get legal action to stop her from driving with the kids while she was stoned, since "our kids are friends with their kids". I called bullshiat, and got a lawyer. Bottom line is, if you want to get high, by all means, have at it. But if you're in a relationship with someone in recovery and still want to get high, you are doing SERIOUS damage.

/end rant

So you have an addiction problem and it bothers you someone is using a non-addictive substance?

If using a substance is more important to you than your personal relationships, it's addictive and you're an addict.


If someone mercilessly nags you to stop doing something that is completely harmless (especially if they start issuing ultimatums) then maybe that relationship isn't worth maintaining. Assuming you aren't a doormat, or a bottom who's into that sort of thing or something.

/yes, driving while high is harmless if you aren't a newbie or prone to panic
 
2012-09-23 08:52:20 PM
"I'm all for marijuana being legalized, so potheads never have anything to talk about ever again."
-Daniel Tosh
 
2012-09-23 10:00:49 PM
Right now three states are trying to legalize marijuana, and what happens the morning after Election Day is anybody's guess


A run on twinkies?
 
2012-09-23 10:13:05 PM

WeenerGord: Great Porn Dragon: a state where fully half the counties haven't legalised alcohol post-Prohibition,


There's states where alcohol is still illegal? What state is that? If you bring it in from somewhere else and drink in your home, are you subject to arrest?


A lot of states in the Southeast US (not by coincidence, also those with very large Southern Baptist and neopentecostal populations) chose not to fully legalise across the state but to enact "local option"--where counties can choose to go dry (keeping Prohibition going in all its manners and ways), wet (liquor sales as in any other state), or various flavours of "moist" (usually only allowing sales by the drink, but sometimes only allowing beer package sales, and in some cases only allowing limited sales at a particular winery or distillery).

Much of Appalachian Kentucky, a good chunk of the Ozarks in Arkansas, a good part of eastern Texas, and First Nations reserves in quite a number of states out West (including a very substantial chunk of Alaska that is Native Corporations treaty land--a bit different legally than the typical "rez" but with the same general legal autonomy status) functionally have never ended Prohibition--they pretty much chose the local option to remain dry after Prohibition ended, and all attempts to go wet or moist have generally been resisted by religious lobbying (in the Southeast) or by the tribal governments themselves (on the "rez"). Yes, this varies from county to county--it's not a statewide thing, but it IS concentrated in certain parts of states.

Yes, this has historically meant that most of Kentucky and Arkansas has historically been under Prohibition since 1910--including, interestingly, a lot of the areas where the major bourbon distilleries were located; the distilleries were FINALLY able to lobby the counties into allowing "distillery sampling and sale" moist licensing so as to allow samples of bourbon on the Kentucky Bourbon Trail distillery tours--previously you could not legally sample bourbon at most distilleries (and yes, I have toured Maker's Mark when its home county was still dry. The tours are better now that you can drink :D)

To make it even worse--in those same communities that have "local option", you can have counties that are dry with communities INSIDE those counties that are moist or even wet--there's a string of counties in eastern KY that are dry but the towns along US 25E and I-75 are going most and wet because they realise they're losing jobs AND tax money to Jellico, TN. :D However, yes, this does lead into legal complications at times.

In those areas that are still dry, yes, if you take your own alcohol home from elsewhere and drink it at home it's illegal and they can bust you for it, and it actually used to be fairly common for people to be busted whilst camping in parks located in dry counties in KY for bringing six-packs of beer along for their own consumption--depending on the amount of alcohol you have with you at the time, it can be anywhere from similar misdemeanor charges to having a joint on you (a nice fine, possibly some time in jail if the judge really felt like being an ass) to overt felony charges (if it was felt you were carrying more than what could be seen for "personal use" and to the level that could be for bootlegging--yes, bootlegging STILL very much exists in dry counties, and people get busted VERY regularly for it.) Pretty much they can legally treat possession of a Budweiser the exact same as they can any other kind of "bud", so to speak.

(As an aside--pretty much what goes on in dry counties in KY is one of the BEST arguments for legalisation of both liquor AND marijuana I've seen. Generally the same source for booze in dry counties (aside from long-distance drives) is the same source one goes to for weed, for meth, for oxycontin, and pretty much any other recreational drug--and pretty much there has been a fairly consistent organised crime problem that's had a semipermanent base in Appalachia in large part thanks to the fact that Prohibition of just about every drug short of tobacco and caffeine never ended. A LOT--MOST--of the crime issue in Appalachia is pretty much the direct result of a lot of the old "bootleggers" getting into weed when it was the new hotness, then into oxycontin when IT was the new hotness, and now setting up meth labs in the middle of the farking Daniel Boone National Forest....but even in the late 70s and early 80s, a lot of the DBNF was plain dangerous to go in thanks to Rather Well Armed Persons running grow ops in the DBNF in the same places where stills used to be run back in the 40s and 50s.)
 
2012-09-23 10:15:18 PM
Weed is a serious waste of time and demotivator. If you use, you're a tool.
 
2012-09-23 10:18:51 PM

flashfearless: Weed is a serious waste of time and demotivator. If you use, you're a tool.


What a couple of tools look like:

www.myclassiclyrics.com

www.barackobama.net
 
2012-09-23 10:58:37 PM

flashfearless: Weed is a serious waste of time and demotivator. If you use, you're a tool.


But without them, who would you have to feel righteous over?
 
2012-09-23 11:52:31 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: Jesus saw demons. prove me wrong


First, there's a few bits to sort out:

a) Prove the historical existence of a person by the name of Jesus the Christ, even under the alternate names Yeshua bin Yosef, Yeshua the Nazarene, or even "Rabbi Joshua" in such a way that the person described is unmistakably the same figure described in the Bible.

Difficulties: Firstly, it is not even historically agreed that the person known as Jesus as described in the Bible existed--there are theories that a lot of the more "mythic" aspects of the story of Jesus are in fact glosses from other non-Abrahamic religions that the early Christian church may have been influenced by including Mithraism and Zoroastrianism.

Secondly, as will be noted, even the four books of the Bible with the closest thing to a "historical" account of Jesus have undergone heavy editing between initial writing and revision, with some books having upwards of six authors and various additions before canonisation.

Thirdly, the existence of Jesus (even as a rather eccentric rabbi of the time) is poorly attested outside of Christian sources of the period--especially unusual considering that the supposed formative act of the Christian faith is the execution-as-a-supposed-revolutionary-and-resurrection of Jesus is not recorded outside of Christian sources, and even the execution of someone around the time considered a claimant to the throne of Judah (which would have been a big deal, especially considering that the Roman Empire destroyed Jerusalem over an attempted uprising in 70 CE and formally incorporated Judaea as a province of the Roman Empire rather than as a protectorate--yes, at the time of Jesus, Judah or Judaea was basically to the Romans as American Samoa or Guam are to the US). About the only reliable account we have of Jesus from a non-Christian source is from Judaeo-Roman historian Josephus, and even his records are "after the fact" and more a record of post-Second-Temple/early Great Diaspora era Judaism.

This is stuff even mainline researchers into the history of the Bible have recurring debates over--probably the most that can be RELIABLY claimed is that there might have been a rabbi by the name of Yeshua bin Yosef that said some rather controversial things in regards to interpretations of halachic law of the period--we can't really even say these were "Jesus-exclusive", as there were a number of "dissenting" Judaic groups of the period (including, notably, the Essenes--the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and one of the better records of "Second Temple Era" Judaism in practice).

b) Prove that the most common Biblical references to the claims that Jesus saw demons weren't added in by additional authors after the time of Christ--or even substantially after the death of the original authors.

Difficulty here--There is strong evidence that the first four books of the Bible were actually written by multiple authors (including additions from oral traditions in some cases) over a period of no less than two hundred years. Even the oldest book in the New Testament Canon, the Book of Mark, has been amended several times--its initial writing was by an unknown Syrian source around 70 CE from a pre-existing oral narrative, and even it seems to have actually been a Koine Greek translation of a pre-existing Aramaic narrative with additional glosses added to describe traditional practices for gentile audiences. Matthew and Luke are now known to likely derive from a predecessor Gospel which is now lost and generally referred to by Biblical scholars as the "Q Source" with considerable glossing by subsequent authors (interestingly, the original parts of the "Q Document" incorporated into Matthew and Luke also include the majority of the parables and other teaching-stories attributed to Jesus) and the primary "Non-Q" author of Luke in particular shows strong evidence of after-the-fact glossing. (And if you're curious, the Joahannine Works--the book of John and the Epistles of John--are even more problematic--multiple authors, multiple glosses, and works separated well over 200 years apart attributed historically to the same author.)

The majority of the "deliverance stories of Jesus" date from the book of Matthew, which (as noted) has at least two and possibly as many as four separate authors and may contain texts from no less than three gospels now lost including a now-lost "Sayings of Matthew" and local traditions in addition to the Q source; its earliest record as a dedicated book comes from Syrian Aramaic sources from the latest first century AD and was written for an early church that was still largely Jewish in worship and in liturgical ceremony (the book was written for an audience already familiar with halachic law and tradition, and does not contain the "Mark Glosses")--this becomes important later for my third point :D

The most famous "Demonic Visitation of Christ" story is of course the Temptation of Christ--notably not present in the text of John indicating that the source may be from Syriac Christian sources, possibly the Q source of the lost Sayings of Matthew; the version in Luke in particular indicates strong glossing from a later source, with the story in Mark being the briefest.

c) Prove that the concept of "Satan" or "demons" in the time of Jesus was the same as followed by Christians now.

Difficulty--There is actually some evidence, even in the story of the Temptation of Christ, that it wasn't (and this actually leads to a lot of "you're getting it wrong" from the Jewish community on interpretations of things from the Old Testament in particular, but anyways...)

Many branches of modern Judaism, and Judaism at the time of Christ and before, did not hold the idea of Satan (or ha-Satan) as an evil anti-deity to God (there's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that this concept of the Christian Devil holds much more to influence from Zoroastrianism and the the opposition between Ormazhd and Ahriman; Judaism would have had influence from Zoroastrianism in the First Diaspora before returning to Judaea) but rather as an active antagonist of humanity explicitly working in the employment of the Divine to test humanity; at least some discussions explaining the Jewish concept of ha-Satan and satanot have directly compared the role of ha-Satan to that of a "prosecuting attorney" in the divine courtroom with God as judge.

(Yes, I know, this is kind of a head-desky concept--it also puts the book of Job in a rather interesting light of being essentially a divine version of The People's Court, or (even more properly) something akin to a Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney game--with the part of Miles Edgeworth being played by ha-Satan. I think I enjoy Job a lot more in the "Phoenix Wright: Humanity's Attorney" reading...THIS IS WHY HISTORICAL AND MYTHOLOGICAL CONTEXT ARE IMPORTANT, KIDS.)

The period when Jesus is supposed to have walked upon the earth is also the period where Zarathustran influence re deity/antideity started showing up in Judaism (particularly among--interestingly enough--the Essenes, who also seemed to have quite the historical interest in demonology from the Zarathustran concept of devas as servants of Ahriman; it was largely among the Essenes where the Christian concept of Satan as anti-deity took place, and the evolution is especially apparent in works in the Christian Apocrypha where the concept of angels also seems to have been partially influenced by the Zoroastrian concepts of Amesha Spentas and Yazatas). Even then, there was still active theological debate over the nature of ha-Satan and the story of ha-Satan trying to tempt Jesus (and failing and being ultimately told to leave) is in large part still a classic "testing of one's faith" story in the old "God's Prosecuting Attorney" mold (though in this case more of a bastard prosecuting attorney).

d) In relation to the above, prove that "Beelzebub" was directly equated to ha-Satan as pictured in Second Temple Judaism.

Difficulty: Strong evidence that "Beelzebub" was not in fact equated with ha-Satan but rather foreign gods (and in fact all the references to ba'alim in the Old and New Testaments are as well). "Beelzebub" in fact seems to be a typically smartassed way to refer to the gods of pre-Judaic Semitic religions as metaphorical piles of shiat--many of the Old Gods of Sumer and Babylon had epithets like Ba'al-hadad (Lord of Storms), Ba'al-zebul (Lord of the High Places), and many many others (ba'al is a Semitic-language term for "Lord"), and there are many many many references in the Old Testament to where the early Jewish population had bad habits of reverting to polytheistic worship of the ba'alim and 'ashtarot (the male and female gods) showing that well up to the final conquest of the Middle East by monotheistic Abrahamic religions there were still pockets of folks who followed the "old ways".

"Beelzebub" was, in other words, the classical way of saying "Your god is a pile of bullshiat". :D (See? Historical context is FUN!)

(Of note, this is not the only story of this general period showing the Abrahamic God utterly pwning one of the old Sumerian deities. The Christian Apocrypha book of
Bel and the Dragon in its first part describes Daniel (yes, as in "of the lion's den") utterly owning a priest of Ba'al-Hadad (one of the primary deities of the pre-Abrahamic Semitic faith) by showing how a supposed miraculous golden-bull image of Ba'al-Hadad was not in fact eating its offerings but was rather having its offerings devoured by its priesthood. Suffice it to say that Cyrus the Great is Not Amused and gives Daniel fiat to level the old temple...)

(For that matter--the historical context of knowing that the ancient Israelis quite often fell back into the "old religion" of worshipping Ba'al-Hadad (whose traditional symbol is a bull) puts that whole bit about just why the Abrahamic God went apeshiat about that whole "golden calf" thing in Exodus into perspective...)

I would add "e) Prove the existence of negative extradimensional entities, either being actively evil, trollish, or merely just being bastard-coloured-bastards filled with bastard-flavoured bastardplasm" but that would be...well...being a bastard :D
 
2012-09-24 12:21:26 AM
 
2012-09-24 12:21:57 AM
Aaaaand since I've probably posted more on Middle Eastern pre-Christian-era mythology than anyone cared to read (seriously, I'll be shocked if someone does, but it is something I find nifty for a sort of "social psychology" even if I AM an apatheist)...

There is actually something directly relevant to both the Bible and weed legalisation. :D And yes, this led from a discussion on some Jesus Camper groups trying to misuse the concept of "annointing with oil" as a form of territorial pissing.

Basically, tl;dr version--someone looked up the original recipe for the "annointing oil" described in the Bible that you'd use to annoint a king during a coronation or an investment of a priest in the First Temple:

"Take the following fine spices: 500 shekels of liquid myrrh, half as much (that is, 250 shekels) of fragrant cinnamon, 250 shekels of fragrant cane, 500 shekels of cassia--all according to the sanctuary shekel--and a hin of olive oil. Make these into a sacred anointing oil, a fragrant blend, the work of a perfumer. It will be the sacred anointing oil. Then use it to anoint the Tent of Meeting, the ark of the Testimony, the table and all its articles, the lampstand and its accessories, the altar of incense, the altar of burnt offering and all its utensils, and the basin with its stand. You shall consecrate them so they will be most holy, and whatever touches them will be holy. Anoint Aaron and his sons and consecrate them so they may serve me as priests. Say to the Israelites, 'This is to be my sacred anointing oil for the generations to come. Do not pour it on men's bodies and do not make any oil with the same formula. It is sacred, and you are to consider it sacred. Whoever makes perfume like it and whoever puts it on anyone other than a priest must be cut off from his people.' "

Now 500 shekels weighs about 12 1/2 pounds; and a hin of olive oil is about four quarts. If you start with an olive oil base, four quarts, and then mix in 12 1/2 pounds of liquid myrrh, 6 1/4 pounds of cinnamon, 6 1/4 pounds of fragrant cane, and 12 1/2 pounds of cassia (an aromatic bark similar to cinnamon), then what you would produce is a fragrantly perfumed oil, almost a syrup.


Now interestingly, one of those ingredients--"Sweet Cane" or "Fragrant Cane" depending on your particular Bible translation--has been identified as one of two things; calamus would seem to be the majority opinion, but there is a minority opinion that the plant referred to as "fragrant cane" could have been cannabis and the annointing-oil of the time of Jesus in particular being used as a sort of "medicinal marijuana" salve. (There does seem to be at least one major group that is actively trying to get cannabis recognised as a sacramental plant, similar to how ayahuasca is legal for Unito do Vegetal church members and peyote is legal for members of the Native American Church.)

(Whether the "fragrant cane" is cannabis or calamus, though, there's actually a very good shot that the sacred chrysm of the time of Christ wouldn't be legal now. Calamus is banned from any non-aromatherapy use similarly to sassafras oil and for nearly identical reasons--basically, the same sorts of studies showing cancer in rats from saccharin showed bad results from safrole and calamus oil, and all three got banned. It's since been found that pretty much carcinogenesis in all three products is directly related to peculiarities of rat metabolism--orange oil is known to be carcinogenic in male rats, but this is due to differences in how rats metabolise things, which is why we're not so fond of using rats in carcinogenesis studies anymore...but so far, non-aromatherapy use of calamus is still illegal, especially for anything for human applications.)
 
2012-09-24 12:25:43 AM

WeenerGord: Great Porn Dragon: Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney

Phoenix Wright, Probate Attorney


And now I am going to be spending the rest of the night going through Phoenix Wrong videos, LOL :D

/yup, actually got into the games proper via seeing the Phoenix Wrong parodies :D
//and more interesting if you realise the games are a parody of the Japanese court system :D
 
Displayed 50 of 106 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report