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

(Gawker)   Prominent marijuana activist killed by drunk driver   (gawker.com) divider line 239
    More: Ironic, marijuana activist, drunk drivers, vehicular homicide, activists, Shutterstock, marijuana  
•       •       •

8211 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Sep 2013 at 2:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



239 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-05 12:56:44 PM  
This isn't even Alanis Morissette ironic.
 
2013-09-05 12:58:02 PM  
Jenny "Kush" Friede, a prominent Denver medical marijuana activist, was killed this weekend after a drunk driver headed the wrong way down an Interstate slammed into her car.

[...]

She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said. "We'd rally at the Capitol the last Saturday of every month for years, trying to tell people that cannabis is safer than alcohol. It's ironic that it was an uninsured drunk driver that killed her."


No. No it isn't. It is tragic and a good example of the point she was trying to make.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-05 01:03:14 PM  

Nadie_AZ: She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said. "We'd rally at the Capitol the last Saturday of every month for years, trying to tell people that cannabis is safer than alcohol. It's ironic that it was an uninsured drunk driver that killed her."

No. No it isn't. It is tragic and a good example of the point she was trying to make.


What that intoxicating substances don't mix with driving?
 
2013-09-05 01:14:13 PM  
Was the drunk driver also high on weed?
 
2013-09-05 01:32:25 PM  
Obviously, we should ban liquor. Or was that tax cuts for the rich? I can't keep the authoritarian response straight anymore.
 
2013-09-05 01:38:33 PM  

Weaver95: Obviously, we should ban liquor. Or was that tax cuts for the rich? I can't keep the authoritarian response straight anymore.


The correct answer is death to anyone blowing a .08 or higher. Right there on the side of the road. Leave the body as an example.
 
2013-09-05 01:41:42 PM  
See? Marijuana is dangerous.
 
2013-09-05 02:16:12 PM  
If the drunk driver was an opponent of marijuana it could be ironic or murder.

It would be ironic because he'd have committed a crime against a marijuana supported and he'd have to spend time in the join.

/Weasel's joint put #4,391
 
2013-09-05 02:16:53 PM  
This morning I needed a pen but all I had was a cup of coffee. Isn't that ironic?
 
2013-09-05 02:16:53 PM  
That failed quickly.

"...spend time in the joint..."
 
2013-09-05 02:18:22 PM  
The only thing that can stop a bad drunk driver with a car is a good drunk driver with a car.
 
2013-09-05 02:18:26 PM  
It's meeting the man of your dreams, and then realizing he's drunk and crossed the center line heading toward you at 75 mph.
 
2013-09-05 02:18:34 PM  
I tend to be wary of people with a nickname related to weed.

But yes, sad. Don't drink and drive you farks.
 
2013-09-05 02:19:02 PM  
Its ironic on a social level where we allow a known dangerous drug to be ubiquitous and yet demonize a mostly harmless one.

Are we spend billions on a War on Drunks?
 
2013-09-05 02:20:19 PM  

mediablitz: Weaver95: Obviously, we should ban liquor. Or was that tax cuts for the rich? I can't keep the authoritarian response straight anymore.

The correct answer is death to anyone blowing a .08 or higher. Right there on the side of the road. Leave the body as an example.


Maybe not the first offense but I'd be OK with mandatory 1 year in jail for second DUI conviction. Fark drunk drivers.
 
2013-09-05 02:20:22 PM  

Prophet of Loss: Its ironic on a social level that we allow a known dangerous drug to be ubiquitous and yet demonize a mostly harmless one.

Are we spending billions on a War on Drunks?


/I don't normally correct typos, but when I do, I spam Fark.
 
2013-09-05 02:20:38 PM  
In before potheads claiming that weed doesn't affect their ability to drive.
 
2013-09-05 02:21:13 PM  
Ha Ha, alcohol wins again!!!!!!
 
2013-09-05 02:21:42 PM  
The only way to kill a good guy with buds is to fill a bad guy with Buds.
 
2013-09-05 02:23:10 PM  

ddam: Maybe not the first offense but I'd be OK with mandatory 1 year in jail for second DUI conviction. Fark drunk drivers.


Uh oh, brace yourself for a brigading. One thing I've learned about Fark is that lots of people claim they're perfectly fine at 0.08 BAC and that we're way too hard on people that choose to drink and drive.
 
2013-09-05 02:24:15 PM  
"She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said.

I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

Unless you can't function until you get your hit of cannabinoids, in which case maybe it should be banned.
 
2013-09-05 02:24:23 PM  
Her last night on Earth was a Phish concert.  The woman who killed her had been busted for DUI before.  So much tragedy.
 
2013-09-05 02:24:30 PM  

freak7: In before potheads claiming that weed doesn't affect their ability to drive.


it doesn't mine because I don't drive on it.
but the test they use might say that I was under the influence even though I wasn't because it will show positive for weeks after use.
I wonder how the drinkers in the country would fare with that kind of standard put on them?
 
2013-09-05 02:24:36 PM  

Russ1642: This morning I needed a pen but all I had was a cup of coffee. Isn't that ironic?


Only if it was decaf.
 
2013-09-05 02:25:06 PM  
wow.. there IS a God!

www.lashistorias.com.mx
 
2013-09-05 02:25:12 PM  

Weaver95: Obviously, we should ban liquor. Or was that tax cuts for the rich? I can't keep the authoritarian response straight anymore.


Slut shame her, Obviously. Then use her death for cheap political points that really stick it to the libs.
 
2013-09-05 02:25:43 PM  

Weaver95: Obviously, we should ban liquor. Or was that tax cuts for the rich? I can't keep the authoritarian response straight anymore.


This week it's start a war in Asia
 
2013-09-05 02:25:54 PM  

freak7: In before potheads claiming that weed doesn't affect their ability to drive.


Yeah because they all say that....

/only drove stoned once- ran a stop sign and almost killed my sister. Weed and driving don't mix, just like alcohol and driving.
 
2013-09-05 02:26:10 PM  

moops: ddam: Maybe not the first offense but I'd be OK with mandatory 1 year in jail for second DUI conviction. Fark drunk drivers.

Uh oh, brace yourself for a brigading. One thing I've learned about Fark is that lots of people claim they're perfectly fine at 0.08 BAC and that we're way too hard on people that choose to drink and drive.


I don't limit it to only alcohol. DUI is for any influence that affects your driving and weed can have an effect on your driving too (did i use affect/effect correctly?). Prescription pills too.

Driving is not a right, it's a priviledge and it should be treated as such at least until we have fully automated cars that require no human input.
 
2013-09-05 02:27:13 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: "She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said.

I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

Unless you can't function until you get your hit of cannabinoids, in which case maybe it should be banned.


so by your definition you can't be oppressed unless you're deprived of something absolutely essential to your survival?
so if you were chained up and given bread and water you couldn't say you were being oppressed?
 
2013-09-05 02:28:30 PM  

ddam: mediablitz: Weaver95: Obviously, we should ban liquor. Or was that tax cuts for the rich? I can't keep the authoritarian response straight anymore.

The correct answer is death to anyone blowing a .08 or higher. Right there on the side of the road. Leave the body as an example.

Maybe not the first offense but I'd be OK with mandatory 1 year in jail for second DUI conviction. Fark drunk drivers.


How many before we get to shoot them?

moops: Uh oh, brace yourself for a brigading. One thing I've learned about Fark is that lots of people claim they're perfectly fine at 0.08 BAC and that we're way too hard on people that choose to drink and drive.


I have no sympathy for drunk drivers. My dad lost his career due to drunk driver. But some of the "laws" are money grabs for private companies providing "classes".

I'd like to see the laws be more straightforward, not "let me pay my way out of this".
 
2013-09-05 02:30:06 PM  
seriously?

/fark, horrible luck
//more sad than anything else really
///three slashies, or your next one is free
 
2013-09-05 02:30:12 PM  

Prophet of Loss: Prophet of Loss: Its ironic on a social level that we allow a known dangerous drug to be ubiquitous and yet demonize a mostly harmless one.

Are we spending billions on a War on Drunks?

/I don't normally correct typos, but when I do, I spam Fark.


Its ironic what?
 
2013-09-05 02:30:58 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.


I have Crohns disease. Pot has been shown to not only provide relief from the symptoms, but to suppress most if not all of the effects of that annoying disease. But I can't legally use it here in Liberal NY because idiots have convinced themselves that the evil weed is dangerous. The fact that one of the most effective treatments for my disease is forbidden to me qualifies as oppression in my book.
 
2013-09-05 02:31:10 PM  

mediablitz: ddam: mediablitz: Weaver95: Obviously, we should ban liquor. Or was that tax cuts for the rich? I can't keep the authoritarian response straight anymore.

The correct answer is death to anyone blowing a .08 or higher. Right there on the side of the road. Leave the body as an example.

Maybe not the first offense but I'd be OK with mandatory 1 year in jail for second DUI conviction. Fark drunk drivers.

How many before we get to shoot them?


3rd time. If a year in jail doesn't get them on the right path, they are no good to us.
 
2013-09-05 02:33:02 PM  

Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: "She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said.

I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

Unless you can't function until you get your hit of cannabinoids, in which case maybe it should be banned.

so by your definition you can't be oppressed unless you're deprived of something absolutely essential to your survival?
so if you were chained up and given bread and water you couldn't say you were being oppressed?


I had plenty of buddies who got into the habit of smoking up before school.  So much so that they couldn't get out of bed in the morning without taking a hit.  These are the sorts of people that would probably be better off never having come across the stuff.

I find it interesting that you are comparing a ban on weed to being chained up and only given bread and water.  You sound like an addict and you would be better off if you had never encountered the stuff.
 
2013-09-05 02:35:04 PM  
If weed didn't also cause impairment then it would be ironic.
 
2013-09-05 02:35:36 PM  

Dinki: JasonOfOrillia: I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

I have Crohns disease. Pot has been shown to not only provide relief from the symptoms, but to suppress most if not all of the effects of that annoying disease. But I can't legally use it here in Liberal NY because idiots have convinced themselves that the evil weed is dangerous. The fact that one of the most effective treatments for my disease is forbidden to me qualifies as oppression in my book.


Perhaps you missed the bit where I mentioned that there are therapeutic uses for weed and that I don't consider a ban on recreational uses to be oppression.  Do you consider your use for Crohn's disease to be recreational?
 
2013-09-05 02:36:24 PM  

freak7: In before potheads claiming that weed doesn't affect their ability to drive.


When you say "in before..." You can follow it with any stupid thing you want because you did in fact make it in before the voices in your head posted. It's a veteran troll move.

/in before all the people who haven't posted yet
 
2013-09-05 02:37:12 PM  
"Get the f***in' manager, I don't care!!!"
 
2013-09-05 02:38:31 PM  
i.telegraph.co.uk
It was like rain on your wedding day.
 
2013-09-05 02:40:56 PM  
freak7: In before potheads claiming that weed doesn't affect their ability to drive.

you know, all those people who black out from weed, unable to focus both eyes in the same direction, rrrriiiiiiiggggghhhhttt...

/dumb comparison is dumb
 
2013-09-05 02:41:33 PM  

Prophet of Loss: Its ironic on a social level where we allow a known dangerous drug to be ubiquitous and yet demonize a mostly harmless one.

Are we spend billions on a War on Drunks?


On drunk drivers? Yes.
 
2013-09-05 02:41:38 PM  

Dinki: JasonOfOrillia: I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

I have Crohns disease. Pot has been shown to not only provide relief from the symptoms, but to suppress most if not all of the effects of that annoying disease. But I can't legally use it here in Liberal NY because idiots have convinced themselves that the evil weed is dangerous. The fact that one of the most effective treatments for my disease is forbidden to me qualifies as oppression in my book.


Hi crohns buddy! I'm in va, it sucks.

Not sure if I would do weed to help it though. My wife already said no when I brought it up after a wow buddy of mine sent me a paper he did on the benefits of mj on crohns
 
2013-09-05 02:43:49 PM  
  cannabis is safer than alcohol.

[Citation needed]
 
2013-09-05 02:45:02 PM  
Rain makes corn
Corn makes whiskey
Whiskey makes my driving..
Kinda risky

... marijuana and whiskey are both organic. I don't see the conflict ..
 
2013-09-05 02:45:40 PM  

mediablitz: Was the drunk driver also high on weed?


That would be a waste of weed.
 
2013-09-05 02:47:16 PM  
Nadie_AZ:
No. No it isn't. It is tragic and a good example of the point she was trying to make.

At what point, and I'm just spit-balling here, at what point can we just agree that "Ironic" also means the thing that every single person in the world thinks that it means?  I'm all for being superior and correcting people, but this word is just gone now.  Let's let it go.
 
2013-09-05 02:47:36 PM  

hammer85: Dinki: JasonOfOrillia: I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

I have Crohns disease. Pot has been shown to not only provide relief from the symptoms, but to suppress most if not all of the effects of that annoying disease. But I can't legally use it here in Liberal NY because idiots have convinced themselves that the evil weed is dangerous. The fact that one of the most effective treatments for my disease is forbidden to me qualifies as oppression in my book.

Hi crohns buddy! I'm in va, it sucks.

Not sure if I would do weed to help it though. My wife already said no when I brought it up after a wow buddy of mine sent me a paper he did on the benefits of mj on crohns


Yeah I've read a lot about  MM and Crohns lately- did you see the Israeli study? Impressive results. And I know many crohns sufferers that use pot for relief from the symptoms. Don't know if you've looked at Crohn's forum, but lots of info there. I haven't tried it yet, waiting for my vaporizor to arrive- suppose to be a much safer delivery system.
 
2013-09-05 02:49:36 PM  
If weed is such a wonder drug then why can't it cure my rampant alcoholism?  Answer that one, hippie.
 
2013-09-05 02:49:45 PM  

Prophet of Loss: Its ironic on a social level where we allow a known dangerous drug to be ubiquitous and yet demonize a mostly harmless one.

Are we spend billions on a War on Drunks?


They've got a big ad push up here called "*DING!!* Weed Out The Facts."  It's all about how weed will melt your brain, kill your dog, and make you vote Obama for a 3rd term.

/DING!!
 
2013-09-05 02:50:01 PM  

js34603: When you say "in before..." You can follow it with any stupid thing you want because you did in fact make it in before the voices in your head posted.


In before the voices in my head posted.
 
2013-09-05 02:50:07 PM  

Dinki: JasonOfOrillia: I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

I have Crohns disease. Pot has been shown to not only provide relief from the symptoms, but to suppress most if not all of the effects of that annoying disease. But I can't legally use it here in Liberal NY because idiots have convinced themselves that the evil weed is dangerous. The fact that one of the most effective treatments for my disease is forbidden to me qualifies as oppression in my book.


I'm glad it helps your ability to cope with the disease...It's rather insane though the criteria that pot has to meet to be considered for legalization. Not only does it need to be almost completely harmless, but it has to be some kind of wonder drug as well.

What's ironic though is there is almost no other activity or substance that could meet the criteria pot actually does manage to meet in terms of potential harm, yet it is still a banned substance. McDonald's cheeseburgers could easily be proved worse, aspirin is worse, playing football is worse, but none of these things is are considered ban worthy. It's impossible to believe the government just cares so much about the safety risk to ourselves as the overriding impetus for drug laws.
 
2013-09-05 02:52:39 PM  
Has anyone noted that this isn't ironic?

/Just asking...
 
2013-09-05 02:53:31 PM  

Dinki: hammer85: Dinki: JasonOfOrillia: I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

I have Crohns disease. Pot has been shown to not only provide relief from the symptoms, but to suppress most if not all of the effects of that annoying disease. But I can't legally use it here in Liberal NY because idiots have convinced themselves that the evil weed is dangerous. The fact that one of the most effective treatments for my disease is forbidden to me qualifies as oppression in my book.

Hi crohns buddy! I'm in va, it sucks.

Not sure if I would do weed to help it though. My wife already said no when I brought it up after a wow buddy of mine sent me a paper he did on the benefits of mj on crohns

Yeah I've read a lot about  MM and Crohns lately- did you see the Israeli study? Impressive results. And I know many crohns sufferers that use pot for relief from the symptoms. Don't know if you've looked at Crohn's forum, but lots of info there. I haven't tried it yet, waiting for my vaporizor to arrive- suppose to be a much safer delivery system.


As long as its illegal in va I'm not even going to consider it. The remicade is doing fine enough so far, and isn't too expensive. Used to be a grand every 8 weeks, now 200 every 10.

But who knows what the hell that's doing to me.

I've also heard studies about using hookworms or something to give your immune system something to fight or the really gross sounding other people's poop injections
 
2013-09-05 02:58:28 PM  

tricycleracer: If weed is such a wonder drug then why can't it cure my rampant alcoholism?  Answer that one, hippie.


It helps your disease, it doesn't cure anything.
 
2013-09-05 02:58:43 PM  
I'm ok with a year in jail for a 2nd dui as long as it involves actually driving a car and not being near a car with the keys, looking sideways at a car, or sleeping in the back seat.
 
2013-09-05 02:59:27 PM  

tricycleracer: If weed is such a wonder drug then why can't it cure my rampant alcoholism?  Answer that one, hippie.


Step 1: Hide all your booze.
Step 2: Smoke a lot of weed.
Step 3: Forget where you hid all your booze.
Step 4: Wait ... wut?
 
2013-09-05 03:00:37 PM  
i371.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-05 03:01:59 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: "She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said.

I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

Unless you can't function until you get your hit of cannabinoids, in which case maybe it should be banned.

so by your definition you can't be oppressed unless you're deprived of something absolutely essential to your survival?
so if you were chained up and given bread and water you couldn't say you were being oppressed?

I had plenty of buddies who got into the habit of smoking up before school.  So much so that they couldn't get out of bed in the morning without taking a hit.  These are the sorts of people that would probably be better off never having come across the stuff.

I find it interesting that you are comparing a ban on weed to being chained up and only given bread and water.  You sound like an addict and you would be better off if you had never encountered the stuff.


I sound like an addict? you sound like a judgmental asshole who thinks he knows it all.

as for your buddies they probably had to get high just to put up with your pretentious ass.
 
2013-09-05 03:02:50 PM  

hammer85: I've also heard studies about using hookworms or something to give your immune system something to fight or the really gross sounding other people's poop injections


And now the 90's finally make sense to me

/not down with OPP
 
2013-09-05 03:04:04 PM  
It always surprises me when people drive to a business set up specifically to offer them a drug that impairs them, then leave in the same car that brought them to the establishment set up to impair them.
 
2013-09-05 03:04:31 PM  
begun, the abused substance war has
 
2013-09-05 03:04:43 PM  

Loadmaster: cannabis is safer than alcohol.

[Citation needed]


deliberately obtuse?

One liquor store has enough alcohol to kill an entire family. There isn't enough weed in all of the dispensaries to kill one person.
 
2013-09-05 03:05:26 PM  

Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: "She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said.

I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

Unless you can't function until you get your hit of cannabinoids, in which case maybe it should be banned.

so by your definition you can't be oppressed unless you're deprived of something absolutely essential to your survival?
so if you were chained up and given bread and water you couldn't say you were being oppressed?

I had plenty of buddies who got into the habit of smoking up before school.  So much so that they couldn't get out of bed in the morning without taking a hit.  These are the sorts of people that would probably be better off never having come across the stuff.

I find it interesting that you are comparing a ban on weed to being chained up and only given bread and water.  You sound like an addict and you would be better off if you had never encountered the stuff.

I sound like an addict? you sound like a judgmental asshole who thinks he knows it all.

as for your buddies they probably had to get high just to put up with your pretentious ass.


My mistake.  It seems like you need to take a hit to calm down a little.  Don't worry, I'm not trying to oppress you.  And if weed is absolutely essential to your survival then you should have access to it.  I wouldn't want to do the equivalent of chaining you up and only giving you bread and water.
 
2013-09-05 03:05:40 PM  

hammer85: As long as its illegal in va I'm not even going to consider it. The remicade is doing fine enough so far, and isn't too expensive. Used to be a grand every 8 weeks, now 200 every 10.


I don't have prescription insurance. The Pentasa my GI prescribed was $1000  a month, and only helped a little. Then he prescribed Uceris, which was $1600 a month. I used the samples he gave me then stopped. I'll be trying the pot because the big pharma solutions aren't all that effective and are too damn expensive. Oh and the Remicade- glad it's working for you, but the potential side effects are scary.
 
2013-09-05 03:05:56 PM  

mediablitz: It always surprises me when people drive to a business set up specifically to offer them a drug that impairs them, then leave in the same car that brought them to the establishment set up to impair them.


They sell appetizers, too.
 
2013-09-05 03:06:13 PM  

moops: ddam: Maybe not the first offense but I'd be OK with mandatory 1 year in jail for second DUI conviction. Fark drunk drivers.

Uh oh, brace yourself for a brigading. One thing I've learned about Fark is that lots of people claim they're perfectly fine at 0.08 BAC and that we're way too hard on people that choose to drink and drive.


No. Fark those morons. On all counts. Anyone blowin a .08 or otherwise fail a field sobriety test should lose all driving privileges and get a bicycle for 5 years. Get caught again, and jail. Kill someone? Death penalty. End of story. Flame on fellas.  You want to drink? that's fine. I'm not going to piss on your good time. You risk my life? There are heavy consequences.

I don't care how many times you've gotten away with it so far. You are lucky, not good at it.
 
2013-09-05 03:06:15 PM  
So, more weed for the rest of us?!
 
2013-09-05 03:06:21 PM  

busy chillin': One liquor store has enough alcohol to kill an entire family.


Best family reunion ever!
 
2013-09-05 03:07:20 PM  

tricycleracer: If weed is such a wonder drug then why can't it cure my rampant alcoholism?  Answer that one, hippie.


Because there is no cure for self restraint.
 
2013-09-05 03:07:57 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: My mistake. It seems like you need to take a hit to calm down a little. Don't worry, I'm not trying to oppress you. And if weed is absolutely essential to your survival then you should have access to it. I wouldn't want to do the equivalent of chaining you up and only giving you bread and water.


Really trying to drive home the "pretentious asshole" part, aren't you?
 
2013-09-05 03:09:05 PM  
On occasions when I've been too high to drive, I've said to myself, "I'm waaay to high to drive.  What I need is some toast."
Conversely, if I drink enough I'll realize, "I feel better able to drive than usual!"
 
2013-09-05 03:09:23 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: "She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said.

I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

Unless you can't function until you get your hit of cannabinoids, in which case maybe it should be banned.

so by your definition you can't be oppressed unless you're deprived of something absolutely essential to your survival?
so if you were chained up and given bread and water you couldn't say you were being oppressed?

I had plenty of buddies who got into the habit of smoking up before school.  So much so that they couldn't get out of bed in the morning without taking a hit.  These are the sorts of people that would probably be better off never having come across the stuff.

I find it interesting that you are comparing a ban on weed to being chained up and only given bread and water.  You sound like an addict and you would be better off if you had never encountered the stuff.

I sound like an addict? you sound like a judgmental asshole who thinks he knows it all.

as for your buddies they probably had to get high just to put up with your pretentious ass.

My mistake.  It seems like you need to take a hit to calm down a little.  Don't worry, I'm not trying to oppress you.  And if weed is absolutely essential to your survival then you should have access to it.  I wouldn't want to do the equivalent of chaining you up and only giving you bread and water.


If you can't answer the question, you're much better off just saying so. Or slinking out of the thread like a whipped cur.
 
2013-09-05 03:09:46 PM  

mediablitz: It always surprises me when people drive to a business set up specifically to offer them a drug that impairs them, then leave in the same car that brought them to the establishment set up to impair them.


That's why I always walk to the liquor store.
 
2013-09-05 03:10:04 PM  

tricycleracer: busy chillin': One liquor store has enough alcohol to kill an entire family.

Best family reunion ever!


"Pass me another bottle of Everclear, Brandine. I can still see straight. And I am sick of looking at Aunt Betty."
 
2013-09-05 03:10:06 PM  

PainfulItching: No. Fark those morons. On all counts. Anyone blowin a .08 or otherwise fail a field sobriety test should lose all driving privileges and get a bicycle for 5 years. Get caught again, and jail. Kill someone? Death penalty. End of story. Flame on fellas. You want to drink? that's fine. I'm not going to piss on your good time. You risk my life? There are heavy consequences.


Maybe, just MAYBE, we shouldn't make alcohol so easily available, prevalent, and integrated into our culture then?
 
2013-09-05 03:10:23 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: "She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said.

I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

Unless you can't function until you get your hit of cannabinoids, in which case maybe it should be banned.

so by your definition you can't be oppressed unless you're deprived of something absolutely essential to your survival?
so if you were chained up and given bread and water you couldn't say you were being oppressed?

I had plenty of buddies who got into the habit of smoking up before school.  So much so that they couldn't get out of bed in the morning without taking a hit.  These are the sorts of people that would probably be better off never having come across the stuff.

I find it interesting that you are comparing a ban on weed to being chained up and only given bread and water.  You sound like an addict and you would be better off if you had never encountered the stuff.

I sound like an addict? you sound like a judgmental asshole who thinks he knows it all.

as for your buddies they probably had to get high just to put up with your pretentious ass.

My mistake.  It seems like you need to take a hit to calm down a little.  Don't worry, I'm not trying to oppress you.  And if weed is absolutely essential to your survival then you should have access to it.  I wouldn't want to do the equivalent of chaining you up and only giving you bread and water.


If anyone needs a little weed to chill out, it might be you.
 
2013-09-05 03:10:30 PM  

mediablitz: JasonOfOrillia: My mistake. It seems like you need to take a hit to calm down a little. Don't worry, I'm not trying to oppress you. And if weed is absolutely essential to your survival then you should have access to it. I wouldn't want to do the equivalent of chaining you up and only giving you bread and water.

Really trying to drive home the "pretentious asshole" part, aren't you?


What part of my statement is pretentious and how does it warrant the insult "asshole?"  All I did was turn the analogy around.

Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?
 
2013-09-05 03:12:24 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: mediablitz: JasonOfOrillia: My mistake. It seems like you need to take a hit to calm down a little. Don't worry, I'm not trying to oppress you. And if weed is absolutely essential to your survival then you should have access to it. I wouldn't want to do the equivalent of chaining you up and only giving you bread and water.

Really trying to drive home the "pretentious asshole" part, aren't you?

What part of my statement is pretentious and how does it warrant the insult "asshole?"  All I did was turn the analogy around.

Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?


If you can't see it, it isn't worth explaining. And I didn't call you an asshole. I was quoting.
 
2013-09-05 03:12:52 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?


Why is getting high for recreational purposes a bad thing, so bad that it should be banned? Or are you conflating getting high with getting addicted? Because they aren't the same thing, ya know.
 
2013-09-05 03:13:53 PM  

Internet Meme Rogers: JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: "She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said.

I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

Unless you can't function until you get your hit of cannabinoids, in which case maybe it should be banned.

so by your definition you can't be oppressed unless you're deprived of something absolutely essential to your survival?
so if you were chained up and given bread and water you couldn't say you were being oppressed?

I had plenty of buddies who got into the habit of smoking up before school.  So much so that they couldn't get out of bed in the morning without taking a hit.  These are the sorts of people that would probably be better off never having come across the stuff.

I find it interesting that you are comparing a ban on weed to being chained up and only given bread and water.  You sound like an addict and you would be better off if you had never encountered the stuff.

I sound like an addict? you sound like a judgmental asshole who thinks he knows it all.

as for your buddies they probably had to get high just to put up with your pretentious ass.

My mistake.  It seems like you need to take a hit to calm down a little.  Don't worry, I'm not trying to oppress you.  And if weed is absolutely essential to your survival then you should have access to it.  I wouldn't want to do the equivalent of chaining you up and only giving you bread and water.

If you can't answer the question, you're much better off just saying so. Or slinking out of the thread like a whipped cur.


Hobodeluxe made two statements:
1. I sound like an addict? you sound like a judgmental asshole who thinks he knows it all.
2. as for your buddies they probably had to get high just to put up with your pretentious ass.

Which one was the question I failed to answer?  If you were referring to the question earlier in the thread, "so if you were chained up and given bread and water you couldn't say you were being oppressed," then I reject the premise of the question.  Being denied the use of weed by society is not equivalent to being chained up and given only bread and water to sustain yourself.
 
2013-09-05 03:15:06 PM  

mediablitz: Weaver95: Obviously, we should ban liquor. Or was that tax cuts for the rich? I can't keep the authoritarian response straight anymore.

The correct answer is death to anyone blowing a .08 or higher. Right there on the side of the road. Leave the body as an example.


I don't have a problem with that. Until you can bring my wife and daughter back to life I'll continue to not having a problem with jacking drunk drivers up against the wall.
 
2013-09-05 03:15:52 PM  

PainfulItching: Anyone blowin a .08 or otherwise fail a field sobriety test should lose all driving privileges and get a bicycle for 5 years. Get caught again, and jail. Kill someone? Death penalty. End of story. Flame on fellas.  You want to drink? that's fine. I'm not going to piss on your good time. You risk my life? There are heavy consequences.


I was stopped on my motorcycle in a grocery store parking lot, letting some pedestrians cross the street in front of me. A woman talking on her cell backed up out of her parking spot right into me. I had the presence of mind to hop of my bike so that I didn't get run over with it. What would of been a just punishment for that woman?
 
2013-09-05 03:16:30 PM  

mediablitz: PainfulItching: No. Fark those morons. On all counts. Anyone blowin a .08 or otherwise fail a field sobriety test should lose all driving privileges and get a bicycle for 5 years. Get caught again, and jail. Kill someone? Death penalty. End of story. Flame on fellas. You want to drink? that's fine. I'm not going to piss on your good time. You risk my life? There are heavy consequences.

Maybe, just MAYBE, we shouldn't make alcohol so easily available, prevalent, and integrated into our culture then?


thoseposters.com
 
2013-09-05 03:18:04 PM  

mediablitz: Weaver95: Obviously, we should ban liquor. Or was that tax cuts for the rich? I can't keep the authoritarian response straight anymore.

The correct answer is death to anyone blowing a .08 or higher. Right there on the side of the road. Leave the body as an example.


China used to do that, cause an accident (drunk or not and someone is killed or badly injured) the cops could shoot you on the spot.
 
2013-09-05 03:18:20 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: mediablitz: JasonOfOrillia: My mistake. It seems like you need to take a hit to calm down a little. Don't worry, I'm not trying to oppress you. And if weed is absolutely essential to your survival then you should have access to it. I wouldn't want to do the equivalent of chaining you up and only giving you bread and water.

Really trying to drive home the "pretentious asshole" part, aren't you?

What part of my statement is pretentious and how does it warrant the insult "asshole?"  All I did was turn the analogy around.

Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?


Good, bad, indifferent... many animals (not just humans) enjoy intoxication. It's not necessarily a primal drive, but if the wherewithal is there, boom! Fun time. Intoxication can be so many things... weed,  mescaline, acid, cocaine, uppers, downers, screamers, laughers, tequila, rum, beer, raw ether, amyls...

It could also be adrenaline rushes, risky behavior, romance chasers who enjoy being drunk on love. Anything that offers us a distortion from reality is eagerly enjoined by people out there. Hell, we can argue that religion, famously quoted as an opiate to the masses (though for a different reason), fills in for weed by millions.

Not all of them impair your ability to operate heavy machinery, but they may impair you in ways that weed never will. So what are you saying? Crush the human (and animal) spirit?
 
2013-09-05 03:18:58 PM  

Dinki: JasonOfOrillia: Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?

Why is getting high for recreational purposes a bad thing, so bad that it should be banned? Or are you conflating getting high with getting addicted? Because they aren't the same thing, ya know.


So simple. To your owners, your "pleasure" comes for a price.
You are a revenue producing herd animal, so keep it down, pay their price, move along,,,
or,,,
 
2013-09-05 03:19:06 PM  

mediablitz: JasonOfOrillia: mediablitz: JasonOfOrillia: My mistake. It seems like you need to take a hit to calm down a little. Don't worry, I'm not trying to oppress you. And if weed is absolutely essential to your survival then you should have access to it. I wouldn't want to do the equivalent of chaining you up and only giving you bread and water.

Really trying to drive home the "pretentious asshole" part, aren't you?

What part of my statement is pretentious and how does it warrant the insult "asshole?"  All I did was turn the analogy around.

Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?

If you can't see it, it isn't worth explaining. And I didn't call you an asshole. I was quoting.


If you say "Really trying to drive home the "pretentious asshole" part, aren't you," then you are agreeing with the original commenter.  And that is fine.  You might feel like your opinion is legitimate but unless you make a decent argument I don't see a need to agree with you.

As for "If you can't see it, it isn't worth explaining," I don't see how saying that recreational use of psychoactive chemicals might be a bad thing warrants you referring to me, directly or indirectly, as a "pretentious asshole."  Are my statements wrong?  Am I taking a bad position?
 
Skr
2013-09-05 03:20:47 PM  
So it has come to this
 
2013-09-05 03:21:17 PM  

Dinki: JasonOfOrillia: Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?

Why is getting high for recreational purposes a bad thing, so bad that it should be banned? Or are you conflating getting high with getting addicted? Because they aren't the same thing, ya know.


Like anything it is not necessarily a bad thing but we all know people who overindulge.  It is the sort of thing where a society might consider restrictions on substances if they turn into too much of a social ill.
 
2013-09-05 03:23:48 PM  
Hopefully it was one of those libertarian ones.
 
2013-09-05 03:24:11 PM  
It is not the car that is the problem.
It is not the alcohol that is the problem.
It is not the marijuana that is the problem.
It is not the gun that is the problem.
It is the politician(hopefully a human) that is one of the problems, but on task;

The problem is humans in pain that behave destructively.
Until you solve the problem, you are stuck financing the PROFIT in addressing the distractions.
Prohibition is a false flag business plan, suckers.
 
2013-09-05 03:25:02 PM  

JohnnyApocalypse: JasonOfOrillia: mediablitz: JasonOfOrillia: My mistake. It seems like you need to take a hit to calm down a little. Don't worry, I'm not trying to oppress you. And if weed is absolutely essential to your survival then you should have access to it. I wouldn't want to do the equivalent of chaining you up and only giving you bread and water.

Really trying to drive home the "pretentious asshole" part, aren't you?

What part of my statement is pretentious and how does it warrant the insult "asshole?"  All I did was turn the analogy around.

Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?

Good, bad, indifferent... many animals (not just humans) enjoy intoxication. It's not necessarily a primal drive, but if the wherewithal is there, boom! Fun time. Intoxication can be so many things... weed,  mescaline, acid, cocaine, uppers, downers, screamers, laughers, tequila, rum, beer, raw ether, amyls...

It could also be adrenaline rushes, risky behavior, romance chasers who enjoy being drunk on love. Anything that offers us a distortion from reality is eagerly enjoined by people out there. Hell, we can argue that religion, famously quoted as an opiate to the masses (though for a different reason), fills in for weed by millions.

Not all of them impair your ability to operate heavy machinery, but they may impair you in ways that weed never will. So what are you saying? Crush the human (and animal) spirit?


I'm not saying "Crush the human spirit" but I am saying that sometimes too much of this stuff can be a bad thing.  In these cases Society should have some right to put the brakes on.
 
2013-09-05 03:25:58 PM  

Obryn: Has anyone noted that this isn't ironic?

/Just asking...


what?! it's like a goddamn fly in my chardonnay ironic!!
 
2013-09-05 03:28:47 PM  

mediablitz: PainfulItching: No. Fark those morons. On all counts. Anyone blowin a .08 or otherwise fail a field sobriety test should lose all driving privileges and get a bicycle for 5 years. Get caught again, and jail. Kill someone? Death penalty. End of story. Flame on fellas. You want to drink? that's fine. I'm not going to piss on your good time. You risk my life? There are heavy consequences.

Maybe, just MAYBE, we shouldn't make alcohol so easily available, prevalent, and integrated into our culture then?


I'm not a drinker. I've seen what chronic drinking does (mother and grandfather). Not for me. I'll literally have 1 beer or a glass of wine on rare occasions.

That said, if you want to and have a way to do it safely, no problem. Most people drink reasonably with no ill effects to their health and they are responsible doing it.  Personally, we shouldn't have people locked up for a few ounces of weed either if it's for personal and responsible use. Some of the heavier drugs? Some shouldn't be on the road if they've taken benadryl.

2 kids in my class were dead before graduation from drunk drivers. Another one was the drunk driver and got a broken back because of it. Once a week around here I see a 4th or 5th offense DUI arrest on the news. A couple of months ago a guy got arrested for his 8th. How the hell are you not in the clink after 7 DUIs?

No pity for them. None whatsoever. If you can't plan ahead to drink, don't do it. If you can't handle that, get some help.
 
2013-09-05 03:29:16 PM  

JohnnyApocalypse: JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: "She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said.

I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

Unless you can't function until you get your hit of cannabinoids, in which case maybe it should be banned.

so by your definition you can't be oppressed unless you're deprived of something absolutely essential to your survival?
so if you were chained up and given bread and water you couldn't say you were being oppressed?

I had plenty of buddies who got into the habit of smoking up before school.  So much so that they couldn't get out of bed in the morning without taking a hit.  These are the sorts of people that would probably be better off never having come across the stuff.

I find it interesting that you are comparing a ban on weed to being chained up and only given bread and water.  You sound like an addict and you would be better off if you had never encountered the stuff.

I sound like an addict? you sound like a judgmental asshole who thinks he knows it all.

as for your buddies they probably had to get high just to put up with your pretentious ass.

My mistake.  It seems like you need to take a hit to calm down a little.  Don't worry, I'm not trying to oppress you.  And if weed is absolutely essential to your survival then you should have access to it.  I wouldn't want to do the equivalent of chaining you up and only giving you bread and water.

If anyone needs a little weed to chill out, it might be you.


Well, I'm not so angry that I'm running around calling people names so I think I'm OK.
 
2013-09-05 03:31:52 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Like anything it is not necessarily a bad thing but we all know people who overindulge.  It is the sort of thing where a society might consider restrictions on substances if they turn into too much of a social ill.


I agree that there are people that over indulge- my sister is a recovering coke addict. My aunts and uncles died from tobacco. I'm a porn addict ;) . But the addiction rates are relatively low. Hell even Alcohol addiction is only 15% of regular drinkers. Pot is less than 10%. At what point do you penalize the vast majority simply because an insignificant minority has a problem?
 
2013-09-05 03:32:54 PM  

Dinki: hammer85: As long as its illegal in va I'm not even going to consider it. The remicade is doing fine enough so far, and isn't too expensive. Used to be a grand every 8 weeks, now 200 every 10.

I don't have prescription insurance. The Pentasa my GI prescribed was $1000  a month, and only helped a little. Then he prescribed Uceris, which was $1600 a month. I used the samples he gave me then stopped. I'll be trying the pot because the big pharma solutions aren't all that effective and are too damn expensive. Oh and the Remicade- glad it's working for you, but the potential side effects are scary.


That really sucks.  Luckily I had my fed bcbs benefits before I got diagnosed.

What's funny is that trying to be healthier is what set off my crohns in the first place.  I was trying to ween myself off caffine so I began drinking lots of milk, and it caused all kinds of chaos immediately.
 
2013-09-05 03:33:55 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: JohnnyApocalypse: ...
Not all of them impair your ability to operate heavy machinery, but they may impair you in ways that weed never will. So what are you saying? Crush the human (and animal) spirit?

I'm not saying "Crush the human spirit" but I am saying that sometimes too much of this stuff can be a bad thing.  In these cases Society should have some right to put the brakes on.


We HAVE put the brakes on it. What do you think the drug laws are all about? It's not like weed is currently legal in all 50 of the states in the US. I don't know the drug laws in Canada, but even in "friendly" states like California, the use is pretty restricted legally (even though the actual use is fairly widespread), and the tales of loser marijuana addicts who are a blight on society is EXTREMELY conflated. The number of cases of marijuana DUIs are a fingerful compared to the number of alcohol related ones. I've never met a longterm stoner who amounted to nothing. Being in California I've been acquainted with a number of people who partake. Some heavily. That's anecdotal, but a knowing snapshot. Your argument is hypothetical. If a substance WERE to be so impairing and such a blight, might we consider curbing it? What was alcohol prohibition? How did that work out? What is America's "War on Drugs" (tm)? How's that working out? Wouldn't you say heroin is a helluva drug and maybe people shouldn't do that so much? How's that working out? Making more laws that curtail the use of something that on the scale of harm compared to other drugs that are almost ALL universally more hazardous seems... silly. Contrived. Whinge worthy.
 
2013-09-05 03:35:45 PM  
monoski:  
China used to do that, cause an accident (drunk or not and someone is killed or badly injured) the cops could shoot you on the spot.


There was a death penalty in China for drunk driving and killing someone until a few years ago.  But the idea that a Chinese cop would immediately dispense a coup 'd grace shot on the spot sounds well.... like an urban myth.

Even totalitarian systems have rules.

You have a source for that?
 
2013-09-05 03:36:42 PM  

freak7: In before potheads claiming that weed doesn't affect their ability to drive.


No one in their right mind will claim that.  But thanks for stating that.  Drugged driving as a concept is starting to gain traction, but that focuses more on illegal substances, not on the effects of prescription drugs or OTC drugs.

Alcohol has a documented and demonstrated effect on driving ability, laws about driving under the influence, and a decades-long social movement and awareness campaign to stop drinking and driving.  In this case, it was the factor for causing this woman's death - unless you want to argue there's a logical reason for driving on the highway in the wrong direction.
 
2013-09-05 03:37:21 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: I had plenty of buddies who got into the habit of smoking up before school.  So much so that they couldn't get out of bed in the morning without taking a hit.  These are the sorts of people that would probably be better off never having come across the stuff.


Regardless, it's not the government's place to tell them that they can't do it. You could make the same arguments about alcohol, tobacco, fast food, large sugary drinks, etc.

Also, I have to wonder if you feel the same way about the millions of people who fully admit that they can't get going in the morning or that they're not themselves until they have their coffee.
 
2013-09-05 03:37:53 PM  

blindpreacher: PainfulItching: Anyone blowin a .08 or otherwise fail a field sobriety test should lose all driving privileges and get a bicycle for 5 years. Get caught again, and jail. Kill someone? Death penalty. End of story. Flame on fellas.  You want to drink? that's fine. I'm not going to piss on your good time. You risk my life? There are heavy consequences.

I was stopped on my motorcycle in a grocery store parking lot, letting some pedestrians cross the street in front of me. A woman talking on her cell backed up out of her parking spot right into me. I had the presence of mind to hop of my bike so that I didn't get run over with it. What would of been a just punishment for that woman?


Attempted manslaughter. IMO. Or at least criminal negligence. Not sure if your area has or had a hands-free cellphone law in place, but they are finally catching up to the world. Good job on having the awareness to bail on the bike and save yourself too.
 
2013-09-05 03:39:36 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: "She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said.

I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

Unless you can't function until you get your hit of cannabinoids, in which case maybe it should be banned.

so by your definition you can't be oppressed unless you're deprived of something absolutely essential to your survival?
so if you were chained up and given bread and water you couldn't say you were being oppressed?

I had plenty of buddies who got into the habit of smoking up before school.  So much so that they couldn't get out of bed in the morning without taking a hit.  These are the sorts of people that would probably be better off never having come across the stuff.

I find it interesting that you are comparing a ban on weed to being chained up and only given bread and water.  You sound like an addict and you would be better off if you had never encountered the stuff.

I sound like an addict? you sound like a judgmental asshole who thinks he knows it all.

as for your buddies they probably had to get high just to put up with your pretentious ass.

My mistake.  It seems like you need to take a hit to calm down a little.  Don't worry, I'm not trying to oppress you.  And if weed is absolutely essential to your survival then you should have access to it.  I wouldn't want to do the equivalent of chaining you up and only giving you bread and water.


I completely agree we should also ban sex that isn't intended for procreation. Its dangerous because it spreads disease, and leads to unintended consequences. People purely seeking personal pleasure are just weak individuals who should be looked down upon. We should also look into banning alcohol because it also causes deaths and is a contributor to seeking out sexual pleasure. We can also ban controceptive devices because it just let's those weak pleasure seekers go around farking without consequences. Im glad I finally found a like minded individual. We should meet up for a glass of water at a bar or coffee shop and laugh at those people who require drugs to make their life a little more manageable.
 
2013-09-05 03:40:36 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Internet Meme Rogers: JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia:

Hobodeluxe made two statements:
1. I sound like an addict? you sound like a judgmental asshole who thinks he knows it all.
2. as for your buddies they probably had to get high just ...


No, he asked you if you think that unless something is essential to life it's okay to restrict or ban it. That's where the chained with bread and water question came in. Because if you were thus, you wouldn't be deprived of things essential for life, but you'd still be oppressed. It's really not that hard to comprehend.
 
2013-09-05 03:41:01 PM  

Dinki: Or are you conflating getting high with getting addicted?


I'm addicted to conflating. Wait, that sounds really dirty ...
 
2013-09-05 03:41:04 PM  

monoski: mediablitz: Weaver95: Obviously, we should ban liquor. Or was that tax cuts for the rich? I can't keep the authoritarian response straight anymore.

The correct answer is death to anyone blowing a .08 or higher. Right there on the side of the road. Leave the body as an example.

China used to do that, cause an accident (drunk or not and someone is killed or badly injured) the cops could shoot you on the spot.


Mothers Against Drunk Driving started in China?!

/fark lobbyists and the judges they coerce into issuing excessive sentences to appear tough on crime.
 
2013-09-05 03:41:13 PM  

2wolves: mediablitz: Weaver95: Obviously, we should ban liquor. Or was that tax cuts for the rich? I can't keep the authoritarian response straight anymore.

The correct answer is death to anyone blowing a .08 or higher. Right there on the side of the road. Leave the body as an example.

I don't have a problem with that. Until you can bring my wife and daughter back to life I'll continue to not having a problem with jacking drunk drivers up against the wall.


Dude. No words.
 
2013-09-05 03:41:38 PM  

tricycleracer: If weed is such a wonder drug then why can't it cure my rampant alcoholism?  Answer that one, hippie.


Cured mine. Well, that and therapy, but it sure helped.

/Try figuring out real answers to your own problems. Sounds like an obvious thing to do, but you're obviously not doing it.
 
2013-09-05 03:41:51 PM  

Loadmaster:   cannabis is safer than alcohol.

[Citation needed]


http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/10-facts-about-marijuana

Citation.
 
2013-09-05 03:42:15 PM  
Good. Us alcoholics stopped him from using a gateway drug.
 
2013-09-05 03:42:16 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?


Not bad, just ignorant.  See:  The War on Drugs
 
2013-09-05 03:43:40 PM  

Dinki: JasonOfOrillia: Like anything it is not necessarily a bad thing but we all know people who overindulge.  It is the sort of thing where a society might consider restrictions on substances if they turn into too much of a social ill.

I agree that there are people that over indulge- my sister is a recovering coke addict. My aunts and uncles died from tobacco. I'm a porn addict ;) . But the addiction rates are relatively low. Hell even Alcohol addiction is only 15% of regular drinkers. Pot is less than 10%. At what point do you penalize the vast majority simply because an insignificant minority has a problem?


Great comment.  All lines we draw can be attacked as being arbitrary (eg drinking ages) but in my opinion you should start restricting when the external/societal cost as quantified in terms of property damage, court costs for acts related to the substance in question, etcetera exceed the benefits from having the substance in terms of happier people.  Now all this is hard or impossible to quantify and if you did you could probably make a case for weed being legal and alcohol being illegal.

The sad reality is that things like weed can be made into a bogeyman whereas alcohol can be marketed as a tonic that makes you more interesting/better looking/whatever.  Of course, in the real world society makes decisions in these matters that are often not based on science but on populist or partisan positions.

That being said my original point, that the banning of recreational use of weed didn't rise to the level of "oppression," is still my opinion even if others in the thread disagree with me.
 
2013-09-05 03:44:09 PM  

mediablitz: Was the drunk driver also high on weed?


I dunno, but if they find so much as a seed in the drunk's vehicle, you can bet that the fact that he
was as drunk as a lord will be less than a footnote in this tale. All of a sudden, all the investigators,
media, officials, etc... will be talking about is how there was 'evidence' that he was high (mind you,
they won't rule it out w/ a blood test...they'll just dangle the speculation out there) and how sad
and ironic this was...what a tragedy it was...and how it is more unfortunate proof that marijuana is
a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad drug.
 
2013-09-05 03:44:43 PM  

genepool lifeboat: Prophet of Loss: Prophet of Loss: Its ironic on a social level that we allow a known dangerous drug to be ubiquitous and yet demonize a mostly harmless one.

Are we spending billions on a War on Drunks?

/I don't normally correct typos, but when I do, I spam Fark.

Its ironic what?


Its like ... rain on your wedding day.
 
2013-09-05 03:45:18 PM  
You shouldn't drive when you're tired, or when you're distracted, or when you're under a mind altering substance (marijuana included).

That being said, you can be drop down drunk (where you can literally not even stay standing upright).  You cannot get that impaired from marijuana.  One is worse than the other.
 
2013-09-05 03:46:14 PM  

Obryn: Has anyone noted that this isn't ironic?


Irony of Fate - The concept that the Gods, Fates, etc. are toying with humans for amusement by using irony. Beethoven's loss of hearing is a famous example; one would expect a composer to be able to hear his compositions, but fate denied him that ability.

Or, you know, not expecting an advocate for marijuana to be taken out by a legal-drug-using driver.
 
2013-09-05 03:47:39 PM  
Billy Bathsalt:On occasions when I've been too high to drive, I've said to myself, "I'm waaay to high to drive.  What I need is some toast."

Conversely, if I drink enough I'll realize, "I feel better able to drive than usual!"


i746.photobucket.com
Weed makes you cautious, booze makes you bold.

 
2013-09-05 03:48:00 PM  

hammer85: My wife already said no when I brought it up after a wow buddy of mine sent me a paper he did on the benefits of mj on crohns


Tell your wife to stop being an uptight, selfish coont and let her husband have some relief.
 
2013-09-05 03:48:44 PM  

freak7: In before potheads claiming that weed doesn't affect their ability to drive.


In before people claiming to be the long-lost ghost of the Emperor Ferdinand.
 
2013-09-05 03:51:12 PM  

kid_icarus: It's meeting the man of your dreams, and then realizing he's drunk and crossed the center line heading toward you at 75 mph.


Still could be the man of your dreams, just not the dream you were hoping for.
 
2013-09-05 03:51:55 PM  
1) Legalize weed and market and sell it as we do alcohol (with age limits, etc), giving similar penalties for impaired driving.
2) Distinguish between hazardous DUI - erratic driving or high-speed driving - and simple DUI, and change the penalties accordingly.
3) Raise the driving age to 18.
 
2013-09-05 03:52:25 PM  

JohnnyApocalypse: JasonOfOrillia: JohnnyApocalypse: ...
Not all of them impair your ability to operate heavy machinery, but they may impair you in ways that weed never will. So what are you saying? Crush the human (and animal) spirit?

I'm not saying "Crush the human spirit" but I am saying that sometimes too much of this stuff can be a bad thing.  In these cases Society should have some right to put the brakes on.

We HAVE put the brakes on it. What do you think the drug laws are all about? It's not like weed is currently legal in all 50 of the states in the US. I don't know the drug laws in Canada, but even in "friendly" states like California, the use is pretty restricted legally (even though the actual use is fairly widespread), and the tales of loser marijuana addicts who are a blight on society is EXTREMELY conflated. The number of cases of marijuana DUIs are a fingerful compared to the number of alcohol related ones. I've never met a longterm stoner who amounted to nothing. Being in California I've been acquainted with a number of people who partake. Some heavily. That's anecdotal, but a knowing snapshot. Your argument is hypothetical. If a substance WERE to be so impairing and such a blight, might we consider curbing it? What was alcohol prohibition? How did that work out? What is America's "War on Drugs" (tm)? How's that working out? Wouldn't you say heroin is a helluva drug and maybe people shouldn't do that so much? How's that working out? Making more laws that curtail the use of something that on the scale of harm compared to other drugs that are almost ALL universally more hazardous seems... silly. Contrived. Whinge worthy.


I think we are arguing past each other.  I'm not saying that weed should be illegal, I'm saying society banning weed for recreational purposes doesn't rise to the level of "oppression."
 
2013-09-05 03:53:19 PM  

punkhippie: tricycleracer: If weed is such a wonder drug then why can't it cure my rampant alcoholism?  Answer that one, hippie.

Cured mine. Well, that and therapy, but it sure helped.

/Try figuring out real answers to your own problems. Sounds like an obvious thing to do, but you're obviously not doing it.


It was a joke, dude.
 
2013-09-05 03:55:25 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: JohnnyApocalypse: JasonOfOrillia: JohnnyApocalypse: ...
Not all of them impair your ability to operate heavy machinery, but they may impair you in ways that weed never will. So what are you saying? Crush the human (and animal) spirit?

I'm not saying "Crush the human spirit" but I am saying that sometimes too much of this stuff can be a bad thing.  In these cases Society should have some right to put the brakes on.

We HAVE put the brakes on it. What do you think the drug laws are all about? It's not like weed is currently legal in all 50 of the states in the US. I don't know the drug laws in Canada, but even in "friendly" states like California, the use is pretty restricted legally (even though the actual use is fairly widespread), and the tales of loser marijuana addicts who are a blight on society is EXTREMELY conflated. The number of cases of marijuana DUIs are a fingerful compared to the number of alcohol related ones. I've never met a longterm stoner who amounted to nothing. Being in California I've been acquainted with a number of people who partake. Some heavily. That's anecdotal, but a knowing snapshot. Your argument is hypothetical. If a substance WERE to be so impairing and such a blight, might we consider curbing it? What was alcohol prohibition? How did that work out? What is America's "War on Drugs" (tm)? How's that working out? Wouldn't you say heroin is a helluva drug and maybe people shouldn't do that so much? How's that working out? Making more laws that curtail the use of something that on the scale of harm compared to other drugs that are almost ALL universally more hazardous seems... silly. Contrived. Whinge worthy.

I think we are arguing past each other.  I'm not saying that weed should be illegal, I'm saying society banning weed for recreational purposes doesn't rise to the level of "oppression."


It's not the banning of it so much as the fact it is enforced unequally amongst races and economic classes.

It is a tool of oppression, it's illegality, not an act of oppression itself.
 
2013-09-05 03:56:52 PM  

Internet Meme Rogers: JasonOfOrillia: Internet Meme Rogers: JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia:

Hobodeluxe made two statements:
1. I sound like an addict? you sound like a judgmental asshole who thinks he knows it all.
2. as for your buddies they probably had to get high just ...

No, he asked you if you think that unless something is essential to life it's okay to restrict or ban it. That's where the chained with bread and water question came in. Because if you were thus, you wouldn't be deprived of things essential for life, but you'd still be oppressed. It's really not that hard to comprehend.


OK, so my original comment was about banning weed for recreational purposes.  In fact here is my quote that started this Farkstorm:

I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

Now if it is essential to life then it isn't really recreational, is it?  I would not describe something as necessary for life as being recreational.  I would imagine that use that is necessary to life would be classed as therapeutic.  Perhaps I made a mistake in one of my comments.  Can you tell me where I said that it would be good to ban something that is necessary to life?
 
2013-09-05 03:58:02 PM  

GnomePaladin: JasonOfOrillia: Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?

Not bad, just ignorant.  See:  The War on Drugs


Possibly.  There are all sorts of problems with prohibitions.  Whether or not those prohibitions rise to the level of "Oppression" is another matter.
 
2013-09-05 03:58:11 PM  

mediablitz: Weaver95: Obviously, we should ban liquor. Or was that tax cuts for the rich? I can't keep the authoritarian response straight anymore.

The correct answer is death to anyone blowing a .08 or higher. Right there on the side of the road. Leave the body as an example.


do they get a white cross then?  i need something to throw my beer cans at.
 
2013-09-05 03:58:12 PM  
Successful troll is successful.
 
2013-09-05 03:59:57 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [i371.whygodwhy.jpg image 321x460]


because god is an asshole?  that much seems pretty damn clear.
 
2013-09-05 04:03:36 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: That being said my original point, that the banning of recreational use of weed didn't rise to the level of "oppression," is still my opinion even if others in the thread disagree with me.


If the penalties for the  recreational use of weed were simply confiscation of the weed, I would agree with you. But they aren't. When peoples lives are destroyed, when the penalties for possession and 'sale' i.e. passing a joint to a friend are worse than some violent crimes, than I think it rises to the level of oppression.
 
2013-09-05 04:03:43 PM  

vicioushobbit: JasonOfOrillia: JohnnyApocalypse: JasonOfOrillia: JohnnyApocalypse: ...
Not all of them impair your ability to operate heavy machinery, but they may impair you in ways that weed never will. So what are you saying? Crush the human (and animal) spirit?

I'm not saying "Crush the human spirit" but I am saying that sometimes too much of this stuff can be a bad thing.  In these cases Society should have some right to put the brakes on.

We HAVE put the brakes on it. What do you think the drug laws are all about? It's not like weed is currently legal in all 50 of the states in the US. I don't know the drug laws in Canada, but even in "friendly" states like California, the use is pretty restricted legally (even though the actual use is fairly widespread), and the tales of loser marijuana addicts who are a blight on society is EXTREMELY conflated. The number of cases of marijuana DUIs are a fingerful compared to the number of alcohol related ones. I've never met a longterm stoner who amounted to nothing. Being in California I've been acquainted with a number of people who partake. Some heavily. That's anecdotal, but a knowing snapshot. Your argument is hypothetical. If a substance WERE to be so impairing and such a blight, might we consider curbing it? What was alcohol prohibition? How did that work out? What is America's "War on Drugs" (tm)? How's that working out? Wouldn't you say heroin is a helluva drug and maybe people shouldn't do that so much? How's that working out? Making more laws that curtail the use of something that on the scale of harm compared to other drugs that are almost ALL universally more hazardous seems... silly. Contrived. Whinge worthy.

I think we are arguing past each other.  I'm not saying that weed should be illegal, I'm saying society banning weed for recreational purposes doesn't rise to the level of "oppression."

It's not the banning of it so much as the fact it is enforced unequally amongst races and economic classes.

It is a tool of oppres ...


Unequal application of a law could be described as oppressive.  And we all know that drug laws in the US are far more likely to hit blacks.  And that is wrong.  However, a ban on the use of weed for recreational purposes is not, in itself, oppressive.  Neither would a ban on the recreational use of alcohol.  Or the recreational use of bacon.  They wouldn't fly.  The prohibitions would fail.  But they wouldn't rise to the level of oppression.  They wouldn't rise to the level of oppression because none of these things is necessary to life.  They are not equivalent to being chained to a fence and only given bread and water to live.
 
2013-09-05 04:05:26 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: GnomePaladin: JasonOfOrillia: Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?

Not bad, just ignorant.  See:  The War on Drugs

Possibly.  There are all sorts of problems with prohibitions.  Whether or not those prohibitions rise to the level of "Oppression" is another matter.


It is simply business. Is that oppression?
 
2013-09-05 04:06:39 PM  

Robert1966: 1) Legalize weed and market and sell it as we do alcohol (with age limits, etc), giving similar penalties for impaired driving.
2) Distinguish between hazardous DUI - erratic driving or high-speed driving - and simple DUI, and change the penalties accordingly.
3) Raise the driving age to 18.


I disagree slightly with you.
1) Licensed MJ sales
2) Triple all current fines for moving violations,
3) Make negligent driving a felony equal to attempted manslaughter
4) DUI as listed previously

/yeah, I'm a hardass when it comes to piloting a big hunk of metal
//at high speed
///in close quarters with other people doing the same thing
 
2013-09-05 04:07:44 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: vicioushobbit: JasonOfOrillia: JohnnyApocalypse: JasonOfOrillia: JohnnyApocalypse: ...
Not all of them impair your ability to operate heavy machinery, but they may impair you in ways that weed never will. So what are you saying? Crush the human (and animal) spirit?

I'm not saying "Crush the human spirit" but I am saying that sometimes too much of this stuff can be a bad thing.  In these cases Society should have some right to put the brakes on.

We HAVE put the brakes on it. What do you think the drug laws are all about? It's not like weed is currently legal in all 50 of the states in the US. I don't know the drug laws in Canada, but even in "friendly" states like California, the use is pretty restricted legally (even though the actual use is fairly widespread), and the tales of loser marijuana addicts who are a blight on society is EXTREMELY conflated. The number of cases of marijuana DUIs are a fingerful compared to the number of alcohol related ones. I've never met a longterm stoner who amounted to nothing. Being in California I've been acquainted with a number of people who partake. Some heavily. That's anecdotal, but a knowing snapshot. Your argument is hypothetical. If a substance WERE to be so impairing and such a blight, might we consider curbing it? What was alcohol prohibition? How did that work out? What is America's "War on Drugs" (tm)? How's that working out? Wouldn't you say heroin is a helluva drug and maybe people shouldn't do that so much? How's that working out? Making more laws that curtail the use of something that on the scale of harm compared to other drugs that are almost ALL universally more hazardous seems... silly. Contrived. Whinge worthy.

I think we are arguing past each other.  I'm not saying that weed should be illegal, I'm saying society banning weed for recreational purposes doesn't rise to the level of "oppression."

It's not the banning of it so much as the fact it is enforced unequally amongst races and economic classes.

It is a tool of oppres ...

Unequal application of a law could be described as oppressive.  And we all know that drug laws in the US are far more likely to hit blacks.  And that is wrong.  However, a ban on the use of weed for recreational purposes is not, in itself, oppressive.  Neither would a ban on the recreational use of alcohol.  Or the recreational use of bacon.  They wouldn't fly.  The prohibitions would fail.  But they wouldn't rise to the level of oppression.  They wouldn't rise to the level of oppression because none of these things is necessary to life.  They are not equivalent to being chained to a fence and only given bread and water to live.


http://i.word.com/idictionary/oppression


Main Entry: op·pres·sion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpre-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power 2 : a sense of being weighed down in body or mind : depression

Nothing in there about necessary for survival being a factor...
 
2013-09-05 04:07:55 PM  

Dinki: JasonOfOrillia: That being said my original point, that the banning of recreational use of weed didn't rise to the level of "oppression," is still my opinion even if others in the thread disagree with me.

If the penalties for the  recreational use of weed were simply confiscation of the weed, I would agree with you. But they aren't. When peoples lives are destroyed, when the penalties for possession and 'sale' i.e. passing a joint to a friend are worse than some violent crimes, than I think it rises to the level of oppression.


In the case of people who are using it to fight something like Crohn's disease or to increase appetite and suppress nausea during chemotherapy I would agree with you.  If it is people buying dope to get high on the weekend then it is an entirely voluntary matter.  In that case society can and has put bans on things.  The bans might be stupid but society can do this.  If it is not necessary then it doesn't rise to the level of oppression.  Just like banning violent video games would irritate me but wouldn't oppress me.  Or banning booze would irritate me but not oppress me.
 
2013-09-05 04:10:01 PM  

RedPhoenix122: This isn't even Alanis Morissette ironic.


Is it ironic that the ironic tag was used when the statement wasn't ironic?

/Subby
//Only picked it because the guy in the article said ironic and it made me laugh because it wasn't ironic
 
2013-09-05 04:12:04 PM  

vicioushobbit: Main Entry: op·pres·sion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpre-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power 2 : a sense of being weighed down in body or mind : depression

Nothing in there about necessary for survival being a factor...


Clearly, that's from an outdated dictionary from before January 2009, when the definition was changed to "any time you don't get what you want immediately after you begin stamping your feet and holding your breath in demand for it."
 
2013-09-05 04:12:14 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: I think we are arguing past each other.  I'm not saying that weed should be illegal, I'm saying society banning weed for recreational purposes doesn't rise to the level of "oppression."


So your argument is that he misspoke.  Or that using extreme qualifiers for dramatic effect leads to miscommunication.  That is fine, and true.  Oppression is different from opposition or illegality.  As for your argument on temperance: you can't legislate behavior.  This is unfortunate (because I'd love to throw some people in jail for being idiots) but for the best.  That's where social pressures and standards come into play.  They are far better at modulating behaviors of peers and effecting social conditioning than any law.
 
2013-09-05 04:12:25 PM  

vicioushobbit: http://i.word.com/idictionary/oppression


Main Entry: op·pres·sion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpre-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power 2 : a sense of being weighed down in body or mind : depression

Nothing in there about necessary for survival being a factor...


You are correct.  But the terms "unjust" and "cruel" are used.  Those terms are pretty loose and often based on what society feels about it.  Most of society feels that heroin dealers being put in jail is not unjust but I'll bet the dealer thinks it is.
 
2013-09-05 04:13:40 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Dinki: JasonOfOrillia: That being said my original point, that the banning of recreational use of weed didn't rise to the level of "oppression," is still my opinion even if others in the thread disagree with me.

If the penalties for the  recreational use of weed were simply confiscation of the weed, I would agree with you. But they aren't. When peoples lives are destroyed, when the penalties for possession and 'sale' i.e. passing a joint to a friend are worse than some violent crimes, than I think it rises to the level of oppression.

In the case of people who are using it to fight something like Crohn's disease or to increase appetite and suppress nausea during chemotherapy I would agree with you.  If it is people buying dope to get high on the weekend then it is an entirely voluntary matter.  In that case society can and has put bans on things.  The bans might be stupid but society can do this.  If it is not necessary then it doesn't rise to the level of oppression.  Just like banning violent video games would irritate me but wouldn't oppress me.  Or banning booze would irritate me but not oppress me.


With your medical background, are you considering any other diagnoses?
 
2013-09-05 04:14:46 PM  
If she was with DiTank instead of DiPinto she would still be alive.
 
2013-09-05 04:15:26 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: vicioushobbit: http://i.word.com/idictionary/oppression


Main Entry: op·pres·sion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpre-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power 2 : a sense of being weighed down in body or mind : depression

Nothing in there about necessary for survival being a factor...

You are correct.  But the terms "unjust" and "cruel" are used.  Those terms are pretty loose and often based on what society feels about it.  Most of society feels that heroin dealers being put in jail is not unjust but I'll bet the dealer thinks it is.


I still fail to see why your definition of oppression requires something essential to life to be suppressed.

I would consider, say, slavery, tone oppression. But slaves are typically given food and some sort of shelter.
 
2013-09-05 04:15:38 PM  

snocone: JasonOfOrillia: GnomePaladin: JasonOfOrillia: Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?

Not bad, just ignorant.  See:  The War on Drugs

Possibly.  There are all sorts of problems with prohibitions.  Whether or not those prohibitions rise to the level of "Oppression" is another matter.

It is simply business. Is that oppression?


I'm not sure what you mean.  You mean the war on drugs?  If so then much of it is stupid and wasteful and ineffectual and corrupt.  But that doesn't mean that society trying to stop someone from getting high on the weekend is oppression.
 
2013-09-05 04:16:39 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: If it is not necessary then it doesn't rise to the level of oppression.


What if it was banning synagogues? Or Mosques? How about banning political cartoons? Or talk radio? I'm pretty sure none of those things are 'necessary' either. But i think you would agree that banning them would constitute oppression. That something can be prohibited by society simply because the powers that be don't like it, lacking a logical legitimate 'for the good of society' reason, is pretty much the definition of oppression.
 
2013-09-05 04:17:11 PM  

CrazyCracka420: That being said, you can be drop down drunk (where you can literally not even stay standing upright). You cannot get that impaired from marijuana. One is worse than the other.


yes you can.  let's not pretend weed is somehow a magical super drug.  you shouldn't drive while fark up on either...
 
2013-09-05 04:17:21 PM  

vicioushobbit: JasonOfOrillia: vicioushobbit: http://i.word.com/idictionary/oppression


Main Entry: op·pres·sion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpre-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power 2 : a sense of being weighed down in body or mind : depression

Nothing in there about necessary for survival being a factor...

You are correct.  But the terms "unjust" and "cruel" are used.  Those terms are pretty loose and often based on what society feels about it.  Most of society feels that heroin dealers being put in jail is not unjust but I'll bet the dealer thinks it is.

I still fail to see why your definition of oppression requires something essential to life to be suppressed.

I would consider, say, slavery, tone oppression. But slaves are typically given food and some sort of shelter.


"To be", not "tone." Bugger autocorrect.
 
2013-09-05 04:18:03 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: I think we are arguing past each other. I'm not saying that weed should be illegal, I'm saying society banning weed for recreational purposes doesn't rise to the level of "oppression."


What about if society had zero say in banning weed? Everyone knows it was a bunch of corrupt politicians that wanted to see that demon weed banned. Society had no say whatsoever.
 
2013-09-05 04:18:15 PM  

kid_icarus: It's meeting the man of your dreams, and then realizing he's drunk and crossed the center line heading toward you at 75 mph.


HA!
Doncha' think?
 
2013-09-05 04:19:52 PM  

Duck_of_Doom: JasonOfOrillia: I think we are arguing past each other.  I'm not saying that weed should be illegal, I'm saying society banning weed for recreational purposes doesn't rise to the level of "oppression."

So your argument is that he misspoke.  Or that using extreme qualifiers for dramatic effect leads to miscommunication.  That is fine, and true.  Oppression is different from opposition or illegality.  As for your argument on temperance: you can't legislate behavior.  This is unfortunate (because I'd love to throw some people in jail for being idiots) but for the best.  That's where social pressures and standards come into play.  They are far better at modulating behaviors of peers and effecting social conditioning than any law.


I largely agree with your statements.  My original comment about the article was directed towards Mr. DePinto's statement about oppression.  It seemed hyperbolic.  Most laws are expressions of some limits desired by society.  In general, the greater the agreement with a law the greater the compliance with that law and the less sympathy there is for those who break the law.  Most of the most successful laws we have are ones that agree with social pressures and standards.
 
2013-09-05 04:20:10 PM  

Dinki: What if it was banning synagogues? Or Mosques? How about banning political cartoons? Or talk radio?


Banning talk radio? I'd like to sign up for your newsletter, but I'm afraid it's been banned.
 
2013-09-05 04:22:04 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: I tend to be wary of people with a nickname related to weed.

But yes, sad. Don't drink and drive you farks.


Maybe she was heavyset, hence kush....like cushy?
It's possible, she probably had the munchies quite frequently.
My first born son shall be named Bogart Sativa Bongstem the 420th
 
2013-09-05 04:22:09 PM  

vicioushobbit: JasonOfOrillia: vicioushobbit: http://i.word.com/idictionary/oppression


Main Entry: op·pres·sion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpre-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power 2 : a sense of being weighed down in body or mind : depression

Nothing in there about necessary for survival being a factor...

You are correct.  But the terms "unjust" and "cruel" are used.  Those terms are pretty loose and often based on what society feels about it.  Most of society feels that heroin dealers being put in jail is not unjust but I'll bet the dealer thinks it is.

I still fail to see why your definition of oppression requires something essential to life to be suppressed.


Oppressed?

I would consider, say, slavery, tone oppression. But slaves are typically given food and some sort of shelter.

I would agree that slavery is oppression.  I would also say that banning weed for recreational use is not equivalent to enslaving someone.
 
2013-09-05 04:23:48 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: snocone: JasonOfOrillia: GnomePaladin: JasonOfOrillia: Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?

Not bad, just ignorant.  See:  The War on Drugs

Possibly.  There are all sorts of problems with prohibitions.  Whether or not those prohibitions rise to the level of "Oppression" is another matter.

It is simply business. Is that oppression?

I'm not sure what you mean.  You mean the war on drugs?  If so then much of it is stupid and wasteful and ineffectual and corrupt.  But that doesn't mean that society trying to stop someone from getting high on the weekend is oppression.


I submit that "society" is a small base of idiots that have been false flagged into supporting something done entirely for Racial and PROFIT reasons.
 
2013-09-05 04:24:38 PM  

Dinki: JasonOfOrillia: If it is not necessary then it doesn't rise to the level of oppression.

What if it was banning synagogues? Or Mosques? How about banning political cartoons? Or talk radio? I'm pretty sure none of those things are 'necessary' either. But i think you would agree that banning them would constitute oppression. That something can be prohibited by society simply because the powers that be don't like it, lacking a logical legitimate 'for the good of society' reason, is pretty much the definition of oppression.


I would argue that freedom of conscience and freedom of speech are necessary and suppressing them would rise to the level of oppression.  Banning getting high on the weekend does not rise to that level.  These things are not equivalent.
 
2013-09-05 04:25:49 PM  

snocone: JasonOfOrillia: snocone: JasonOfOrillia: GnomePaladin: JasonOfOrillia: Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?

Not bad, just ignorant.  See:  The War on Drugs

Possibly.  There are all sorts of problems with prohibitions.  Whether or not those prohibitions rise to the level of "Oppression" is another matter.

It is simply business. Is that oppression?

I'm not sure what you mean.  You mean the war on drugs?  If so then much of it is stupid and wasteful and ineffectual and corrupt.  But that doesn't mean that society trying to stop someone from getting high on the weekend is oppression.

I submit that "society" is a small base of idiots that have been false flagged into supporting something done entirely for Racial and PROFIT reasons.


I would agree with that statement.  All I'm saying is that banning people from getting high on the weekend does not rise to the level of oppression.
 
2013-09-05 04:26:28 PM  
cannabis is safer than alcohol.

Loadmaster: [Citation needed]


busy chillin': deliberately obtuse? One liquor store has enough alcohol to kill an entire family. There isn't enough weed in all of the dispensaries to kill one person.


So that's the only criteria for "safe"? I guess operating potentially lethal heavy machinery with impaired mental faculties (like Dinki's example) just doesn't count. My bad.
 
2013-09-05 04:27:28 PM  
hey has anyone defined oppression?

/the war on drugs is oppressive...
//also, this just in; drugs win.
 
2013-09-05 04:27:59 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: All I'm saying is that banning people from getting high on the weekend does not rise to the level of oppression.


edgy
 
2013-09-05 04:28:12 PM  

carrion_luggage: The only way to kill a good guy with buds is to fill a bad guy with Buds.


Well done sir. Or ma'am. Whatever you are.
 
2013-09-05 04:29:31 PM  
TSA saves us from terrorism.
Weed is evil and causes accidents.
Iraq had WOMADs.

Anyone supporting the above in whole or in part needs a kick in the nuts so hard that their seed time travels back to prehistoric time and starts the missing link. Which is genetically, intellectually where it belongs, anyway.
 
2013-09-05 04:31:47 PM  

Loadmaster: cannabis is safer than alcohol.

Loadmaster: [Citation needed]

busy chillin': deliberately obtuse? One liquor store has enough alcohol to kill an entire family. There isn't enough weed in all of the dispensaries to kill one person.

So that's the only criteria for "safe"? I guess operating potentially lethal heavy machinery with impaired mental faculties (like Dinki's example) just doesn't count. My bad.


operating potentially lethal machinery can be dangerous regardless...
 
2013-09-05 04:32:22 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: I would argue that freedom of conscience and freedom of speech are necessary and suppressing them would rise to the level of oppression.  Banning getting high on the weekend does not rise to that level.  These things are not equivalent.


And I think many people would argue that getting high is a form of expression covered under the 1st amendment, and is also covered by the 5th amendment. I think society telling someone what they can and cannot do with their own body is oppression pure and simple.
 
2013-09-05 04:34:46 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Unequal application of a law could be described as oppressive. And we all know that drug laws in the US are far more likely to hit blacks. And that is wrong. However, a ban on the use of weed for recreational purposes is not, in itself, oppressive. Neither would a ban on the recreational use of alcohol. Or the recreational use of bacon. They wouldn't fly. The prohibitions would fail. But they wouldn't rise to the level of oppression. They wouldn't rise to the level of oppression because none of these things is necessary to life. They are not equivalent to being chained to a fence and only given bread and water to live.


see it's you making the point that unless it's required to live then denying it is not oppressive. I only took your logic to the Nth to show how irrational it is. prohibition is oppressive. it's the govt taking away a liberty.
 
2013-09-05 04:36:15 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: vicioushobbit: JasonOfOrillia: vicioushobbit: http://i.word.com/idictionary/oppression


Main Entry: op·pres·sion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpre-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power 2 : a sense of being weighed down in body or mind : depression

Nothing in there about necessary for survival being a factor...

You are correct.  But the terms "unjust" and "cruel" are used.  Those terms are pretty loose and often based on what society feels about it.  Most of society feels that heroin dealers being put in jail is not unjust but I'll bet the dealer thinks it is.

I still fail to see why your definition of oppression requires something essential to life to be suppressed.

Oppressed?

I would consider, say, slavery, tone oppression. But slaves are typically given food and some sort of shelter.

I would agree that slavery is oppression.  I would also say that banning weed for recreational use is not equivalent to enslaving someone.


Grats on catching my autocorrect. Now clarify why your definition seems to require something essential to life to be oppressed, as you stated several times.

Also clarify what you feel is essential to life being kept from slavery, which you agree is repression
 
2013-09-05 04:36:56 PM  

Headso: Loadmaster: cannabis is safer than alcohol.

Loadmaster: [Citation needed]

busy chillin': deliberately obtuse? One liquor store has enough alcohol to kill an entire family. There isn't enough weed in all of the dispensaries to kill one person.

So that's the only criteria for "safe"? I guess operating potentially lethal heavy machinery with impaired mental faculties (like Dinki's example) just doesn't count. My bad.

operating potentially lethal machinery can be dangerous regardless...


A well placed and perfectly timed Raisinet could cause a Rube Goldberg type fatal incident, so we just throw all of the rules out of the window?
 
2013-09-05 04:37:56 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Duck_of_Doom: JasonOfOrillia: I think we are arguing past each other.  I'm not saying that weed should be illegal, I'm saying society banning weed for recreational purposes doesn't rise to the level of "oppression."

So your argument is that he misspoke.  Or that using extreme qualifiers for dramatic effect leads to miscommunication.  That is fine, and true.  Oppression is different from opposition or illegality.  As for your argument on temperance: you can't legislate behavior.  This is unfortunate (because I'd love to throw some people in jail for being idiots) but for the best.  That's where social pressures and standards come into play.  They are far better at modulating behaviors of peers and effecting social conditioning than any law.

I largely agree with your statements.  My original comment about the article was directed towards Mr. DePinto's statement about oppression.  It seemed hyperbolic.  Most laws are expressions of some limits desired by society.  In general, the greater the agreement with a law the greater the compliance with that law and the less sympathy there is for those who break the law.  Most of the most successful laws we have are ones that agree with social pressures and standards.


But again, what if those laws were not determined by society or society had no say in those laws?
 
2013-09-05 04:40:14 PM  
The good news is that her friends and family held a fundraiser for her 4 kids last night and raised just over $5,500.

If you feel like helping, you can do so though:  http://www.wepay.com/donations/297729414
 
2013-09-05 04:40:27 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: "She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said.

I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.


If you say so

 prisonphotography.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-05 04:40:55 PM  

PainfulItching: Headso: Loadmaster: cannabis is safer than alcohol.

Loadmaster: [Citation needed]

busy chillin': deliberately obtuse? One liquor store has enough alcohol to kill an entire family. There isn't enough weed in all of the dispensaries to kill one person.

So that's the only criteria for "safe"? I guess operating potentially lethal heavy machinery with impaired mental faculties (like Dinki's example) just doesn't count. My bad.

operating potentially lethal machinery can be dangerous regardless...

A well placed and perfectly timed Raisinet could cause a Rube Goldberg type fatal incident, so we just throw all of the rules out of the window?


I don't know what that means, but to clarify what I was saying, the level of danger involved in operating potentially lethal machinery has nothing to do with how safe cannabis is.
 
2013-09-05 04:41:06 PM  

scottydoesntknow: JasonOfOrillia: Duck_of_Doom: JasonOfOrillia: I think we are arguing past each other.  I'm not saying that weed should be illegal, I'm saying society banning weed for recreational purposes doesn't rise to the level of "oppression."

So your argument is that he misspoke.  Or that using extreme qualifiers for dramatic effect leads to miscommunication.  That is fine, and true.  Oppression is different from opposition or illegality.  As for your argument on temperance: you can't legislate behavior.  This is unfortunate (because I'd love to throw some people in jail for being idiots) but for the best.  That's where social pressures and standards come into play.  They are far better at modulating behaviors of peers and effecting social conditioning than any law.

I largely agree with your statements.  My original comment about the article was directed towards Mr. DePinto's statement about oppression.  It seemed hyperbolic.  Most laws are expressions of some limits desired by society.  In general, the greater the agreement with a law the greater the compliance with that law and the less sympathy there is for those who break the law.  Most of the most successful laws we have are ones that agree with social pressures and standards.

But again, what if those laws were not determined by society or society had no say in those laws?


majority rule can be oppressive. just because a majority of society agree on something doesn't make it just.  also a majority of Americans want pot legalized.
 
2013-09-05 04:41:29 PM  

PainfulItching: moops: ddam: Maybe not the first offense but I'd be OK with mandatory 1 year in jail for second DUI conviction. Fark drunk drivers.

Uh oh, brace yourself for a brigading. One thing I've learned about Fark is that lots of people claim they're perfectly fine at 0.08 BAC and that we're way too hard on people that choose to drink and drive.

No. Fark those morons. On all counts. Anyone blowin a .08 or otherwise fail a field sobriety test should lose all driving privileges and get a bicycle for 5 years. Get caught again, and jail. Kill someone? Death penalty. End of story. Flame on fellas.  You want to drink? that's fine. I'm not going to piss on your good time. You risk my life? There are heavy consequences.

I don't care how many times you've gotten away with it so far. You are lucky, not good at it.


No, no bikes. I am sick and tired of drunk assholes riding their bikes down the road on the wrong side it is scary as fark to be riding along and see some asshole riding towards you, luckily most of the time the cars going the same way as me see the idiot too and give me some room to go past the idiot safely. Make them hire a driver to drive them. Consider it a tax on being an idiot.
 
2013-09-05 04:41:39 PM  

Alphakronik: The good news is that her friends and family held a fundraiser for her 4 kids last night and raised just over $5,500.

If you feel like helping, you can do so though:  http://www.wepay.com/donations/297729414


Oh no... 4 kids!!!! arghhh so tragic.
 
2013-09-05 04:42:19 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Jenny "Kush" Friede, a prominent Denver medical marijuana activist, was killed this weekend after a drunk driver headed the wrong way down an Interstate slammed into her car.

[...]

She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said. "We'd rally at the Capitol the last Saturday of every month for years, trying to tell people that cannabis is safer than alcohol. It's ironic that it was an uninsured drunk driver that killed her."

No. No it isn't. It is tragic and a good example of the point she was trying to make.


A proponent of a drug that's illegal was killed by someone under the influence of a legal drug. That certainly does qualify as irony.
 
2013-09-05 04:45:15 PM  

Headso: JasonOfOrillia: All I'm saying is that banning people from getting high on the weekend does not rise to the level of oppression.

edgy


In this crowd it is, apparently.
 
2013-09-05 04:47:49 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Headso: JasonOfOrillia: All I'm saying is that banning people from getting high on the weekend does not rise to the level of oppression.

edgy

In this crowd it is, apparently.


No, I think you just have your own personal definition of oppression. One which seems to change slightly depending on how you are asked.

I'll let you keep your opinion, as leave you with your moving goalposts.
 
2013-09-05 04:48:52 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: mediablitz: JasonOfOrillia: My mistake. It seems like you need to take a hit to calm down a little. Don't worry, I'm not trying to oppress you. And if weed is absolutely essential to your survival then you should have access to it. I wouldn't want to do the equivalent of chaining you up and only giving you bread and water.

Really trying to drive home the "pretentious asshole" part, aren't you?

What part of my statement is pretentious and how does it warrant the insult "asshole?"  All I did was turn the analogy around.

Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?


It has brought us so much good. Record level incarceration rates. Militarized police departments. Cartels. Billions of dollars for privatized prisons.
Just SO many benefits to us we can barely count.
All over a substance which at the very least the last 3 presidents, the worlds most famous body builder and the world's most succesfull Olympian have used.

So many benefits!
 
2013-09-05 04:49:14 PM  

Jormungandr: PainfulItching: moops: ddam: Maybe not the first offense but I'd be OK with mandatory 1 year in jail for second DUI conviction. Fark drunk drivers.

Uh oh, brace yourself for a brigading. One thing I've learned about Fark is that lots of people claim they're perfectly fine at 0.08 BAC and that we're way too hard on people that choose to drink and drive.

No. Fark those morons. On all counts. Anyone blowin a .08 or otherwise fail a field sobriety test should lose all driving privileges and get a bicycle for 5 years. Get caught again, and jail. Kill someone? Death penalty. End of story. Flame on fellas.  You want to drink? that's fine. I'm not going to piss on your good time. You risk my life? There are heavy consequences.

I don't care how many times you've gotten away with it so far. You are lucky, not good at it.

No, no bikes. I am sick and tired of drunk assholes riding their bikes down the road on the wrong side it is scary as fark to be riding along and see some asshole riding towards you, luckily most of the time the cars going the same way as me see the idiot too and give me some room to go past the idiot safely. Make them hire a driver to drive them. Consider it a tax on being an idiot.


hmmmmmmm. A new job market. And a sponsorship from a car company. Wrap the cars in advertising.

DIBS!!
 
2013-09-05 04:51:11 PM  
So, has anyone mentioned that this isn't ironic.

Perhaps a coincidence.
 
2013-09-05 04:51:23 PM  

Dinki: JasonOfOrillia: I would argue that freedom of conscience and freedom of speech are necessary and suppressing them would rise to the level of oppression.  Banning getting high on the weekend does not rise to that level.  These things are not equivalent.

And I think many people would argue that getting high is a form of expression covered under the 1st amendment, and is also covered by the 5th amendment. I think society telling someone what they can and cannot do with their own body is oppression pure and simple.


These bans normally come about through the external effects; drunk driving, second-hand smoke, inability to support or care for your family, etcetera.  Sometimes these are good justifications and sometimes they are not.  Currently that is at society's discretion.

That being said if you feel that the state should not get between someone and their psychoactive substances and that rises to the level of something that should be protected by the constitution then we just have an honest disagreement.
 
2013-09-05 04:52:34 PM  

vicioushobbit: JasonOfOrillia: Headso: JasonOfOrillia: All I'm saying is that banning people from getting high on the weekend does not rise to the level of oppression.

edgy

In this crowd it is, apparently.

No, I think you just have your own personal definition of oppression. One which seems to change slightly depending on how you are asked.

I'll let you keep your opinion, as leave you with your moving goalposts.


How are my goalposts moving?  I don't believe that I have changed my definition of oppression.
 
2013-09-05 04:52:53 PM  

GnomePaladin: See: The War on Drugs


I did see them, at Lolla last year. They were pretty good, too.
 
2013-09-05 04:55:22 PM  

vudukungfu: TSA saves us from terrorism.
Weed is evil and causes accidents.
Iraq had WOMADs.

Anyone supporting the above in whole or in part needs a kick in the nuts so hard that their seed time travels back to prehistoric time and starts the missing link. Which is genetically, intellectually where it belongs, anyway.


just because I firmly beleive it's impossible for this thread to spiral any further down  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2012-02 - 09/Marijuana-users-twice-as-likely-to-cause-car-crash/53031202/1
 
2013-09-05 04:55:31 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: vicioushobbit: JasonOfOrillia: Headso: JasonOfOrillia: All I'm saying is that banning people from getting high on the weekend does not rise to the level of oppression.

edgy

In this crowd it is, apparently.

No, I think you just have your own personal definition of oppression. One which seems to change slightly depending on how you are asked.

I'll let you keep your opinion, as leave you with your moving goalposts.

How are my goalposts moving?  I don't believe that I have changed my definition of oppression.


You never answered my post regarding what essentiality to survival is being withheld in slavery, which you agreed was oppression.

Essentiality to survival being stated several times by you as needing to be a factor in oppression.

That, there, looks like a moving goalpost to me.
 
2013-09-05 05:06:11 PM  

RedPhoenix122: This isn't even Alanis Morissette ironic.


She used that word because "isn't that misfortunate coincidence" didn't really fit into musical phrasing very well.
 
2013-09-05 05:08:59 PM  

A Fark Handle: CrazyCracka420: That being said, you can be drop down drunk (where you can literally not even stay standing upright). You cannot get that impaired from marijuana. One is worse than the other.

yes you can.  let's not pretend weed is somehow a magical super drug.  you shouldn't drive while fark up on either...


No actually, no matter how much you smoke you will never be as impaired as you can get on alcohol.  You can literally become unconscious and die from alcohol consumption.  Not so much with marijuana.
 
2013-09-05 05:09:09 PM  

vicioushobbit: JasonOfOrillia: vicioushobbit: JasonOfOrillia: Headso: JasonOfOrillia: All I'm saying is that banning people from getting high on the weekend does not rise to the level of oppression.

edgy

In this crowd it is, apparently.

No, I think you just have your own personal definition of oppression. One which seems to change slightly depending on how you are asked.

I'll let you keep your opinion, as leave you with your moving goalposts.

How are my goalposts moving?  I don't believe that I have changed my definition of oppression.

You never answered my post regarding what essentiality to survival is being withheld in slavery, which you agreed was oppression.

Essentiality to survival being stated several times by you as needing to be a factor in oppression.

That, there, looks like a moving goalpost to me.


You know what, you might have a fair criticism.  I believe you are referring to when I submitted this:
They wouldn't rise to the level of oppression because none of these things is necessary to life.  They are not equivalent to being chained to a fence and only given bread and water to live.

That is is mistake on my part, driven by my reaction to the earlier analogy of the denial of the right to smoke dope being made equivalent to being chained to a fence and only being given bread and water to live.  It would have been smarter for me to say that the banning of smoking dope recreationally does not rise to the level of oppression because it is so inconsequential to living.  It would be like calling the banning of Mars bars oppressive.  It would be irritating but it seems extreme to call it oppressive.

Anywho, I will be offline for a while.  I'm going to see a couple of movies.  So if you don't see me respond quickly please don't think that I'm "slinking out of the thread like a whipped cur."
 
2013-09-05 05:10:06 PM  

PainfulItching: mediablitz: PainfulItching: No. Fark those morons. On all counts. Anyone blowin a .08 or otherwise fail a field sobriety test should lose all driving privileges and get a bicycle for 5 years. Get caught again, and jail. Kill someone? Death penalty. End of story. Flame on fellas. You want to drink? that's fine. I'm not going to piss on your good time. You risk my life? There are heavy consequences.

Maybe, just MAYBE, we shouldn't make alcohol so easily available, prevalent, and integrated into our culture then?

I'm not a drinker. I've seen what chronic drinking does (mother and grandfather). Not for me. I'll literally have 1 beer or a glass of wine on rare occasions.

That said, if you want to and have a way to do it safely, no problem. Most people drink reasonably with no ill effects to their health and they are responsible doing it.  Personally, we shouldn't have people locked up for a few ounces of weed either if it's for personal and responsible use. Some of the heavier drugs? Some shouldn't be on the road if they've taken benadryl.

2 kids in my class were dead before graduation from drunk drivers. Another one was the drunk driver and got a broken back because of it. Once a week around here I see a 4th or 5th offense DUI arrest on the news. A couple of months ago a guy got arrested for his 8th. How the hell are you not in the clink after 7 DUIs?

No pity for them. None whatsoever. If you can't plan ahead to drink, don't do it. If you can't handle that, get some help.


I knew a girl that had 7 dui-s, most of them occurred in Va., a couple in Md.- this was before we had good interconnected police records, I suppose.
Her 8th one (that finally landed her in weekend and after-work lockup, because she had a job, wtf) she was so drunk she didn't even realize she wasn't the passenger.
She miscarried a bunch of times, twice with twins, because she couldn't just say no. Had a bad coke habit at one point, too. Thank god she's no longer in my life. She could be dead-I'd honestly be surprised if she wasn't.

Treat it like a disease, whether or not it's just a lack of control. Mandated rehabilitation, none of that go to AA bullshizz. Gotta change laws for the state to commit repeat offenders, and make rehab easy to access for all.
 
2013-09-05 05:10:28 PM  

Headso: PainfulItching: Headso: Loadmaster:
A well placed and perfectly timed Raisinet could cause a Rube Goldberg type fatal incident, so we just throw all of the rules out of the window?

I don't know what that means, but to clarify what I was saying, the level of danger involved in operating potentially lethal machinery has nothing to do with how safe cannabis is.


Beg pardon, I think I quoted the wrong post. Can't find it now. Disregard.
 
2013-09-05 05:14:21 PM  
4 kids!? A burn out stoner with 4 kids? Where's the dad I wonder... Probably scraping resin out of an old bowl to get a small high before going to play frisbee golf with some arts students.
 
2013-09-05 05:25:55 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 4 kids!? A burn out stoner with 4 kids? Where's the dad I wonder... Probably scraping resin out of an old bowl to get a small high before going to play frisbee golf with some arts students.


Or golfing with another burnout like Ahnold, who has 5 kids with a supermodel.

Farking burnout loser.
 
2013-09-05 05:27:56 PM  

Luse: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 4 kids!? A burn out stoner with 4 kids? Where's the dad I wonder... Probably scraping resin out of an old bowl to get a small high before going to play frisbee golf with some arts students.

Or golfing with another burnout like Ahnold, who has 5 kids with a supermodel.

Farking burnout loser.


Yeah, that encapsulates your average pothead. Jesus
 
2013-09-05 05:28:48 PM  

CrazyCracka420: A Fark Handle: CrazyCracka420: That being said, you can be drop down drunk (where you can literally not even stay standing upright). You cannot get that impaired from marijuana. One is worse than the other.

yes you can.  let's not pretend weed is somehow a magical super drug.  you shouldn't drive while fark up on either...

No actually, no matter how much you smoke you will never be as impaired as you can get on alcohol.  You can literally become unconscious and die from alcohol consumption.  Not so much with marijuana.


you can pass out from both.  when you pass out behind the wheel no matter the cause you're the same level of danger to others.  now the whole dying from an overdose thing is different between weed and alcohol.
 
2013-09-05 05:33:21 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Luse: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 4 kids!? A burn out stoner with 4 kids? Where's the dad I wonder... Probably scraping resin out of an old bowl to get a small high before going to play frisbee golf with some arts students.

Or golfing with another burnout like Ahnold, who has 5 kids with a supermodel.

Farking burnout loser.

Yeah, that encapsulates your average pothead. Jesus


So who does?
George Bush? Clinton? Obama? Sagan?
 
2013-09-05 05:36:52 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Luse: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 4 kids!? A burn out stoner with 4 kids? Where's the dad I wonder... Probably scraping resin out of an old bowl to get a small high before going to play frisbee golf with some arts students.

Or golfing with another burnout like Ahnold, who has 5 kids with a supermodel.

Farking burnout loser.

Yeah, that encapsulates your average pothead. Jesus


hey gramps, it's 2013, people from all walks of life smoke pot now, it's been virtually legal in the most populous highest GDP state for almost 20 years.
 
2013-09-05 05:37:09 PM  

PainfulItching: Robert1966: 1) Legalize weed and market and sell it as we do alcohol (with age limits, etc), giving similar penalties for impaired driving.
2) Distinguish between hazardous DUI - erratic driving or high-speed driving - and simple DUI, and change the penalties accordingly.
3) Raise the driving age to 18.

I disagree slightly with you.
1) Licensed MJ sales
2) Triple all current fines for moving violations,
3) Make negligent driving a felony equal to attempted manslaughter
4) DUI as listed previously

/yeah, I'm a hardass when it comes to piloting a big hunk of metal
//at high speed
///in close quarters with other people doing the same thing


Or we could opt to be reasonable, which is always the best course of action. Over reactive legislature is never a good idea.
 
2013-09-05 05:37:28 PM  

Luse: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Luse: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 4 kids!? A burn out stoner with 4 kids? Where's the dad I wonder... Probably scraping resin out of an old bowl to get a small high before going to play frisbee golf with some arts students.

Or golfing with another burnout like Ahnold, who has 5 kids with a supermodel.

Farking burnout loser.

Yeah, that encapsulates your average pothead. Jesus

So who does?
George Bush? Clinton? Obama? Sagan?


I'd say your average pothead does, not the few notable exceptions.
 
2013-09-05 05:48:17 PM  

moops: ddam: Maybe not the first offense but I'd be OK with mandatory 1 year in jail for second DUI conviction. Fark drunk drivers.

Uh oh, brace yourself for a brigading. One thing I've learned about Fark is that lots of people claim they're perfectly fine at 0.08 BAC and that we're way too hard on people that choose to drink and drive.


0.08 is nearly meaningless. It provides a rough correlation with impairment, but fatigue is at least as much of a problem, and that doesn't show up on any breathalyzer. Roadside tests are all that can prove impairment, any kind of chemical analysis only shows possible impairment by a particular drug.

I've had one drink and combined with sleepiness been too impaired to drive. I've had a dozen drinks and driven fine. Of course, I also drive almost 100,000 miles a year, so it's a pretty ingrained habit at this point; mastering anything sober means you can still do it drunk better than sober neophytes.

That said, 0.08 is more drunk than most people realize. They get a little buzz and think I MUST BE LEGALLY DRUNK BUT I'M FINE LOL when the reality is that they're still two drinks away from the limit. Bar breathalyzers are worthless, they're just made to give you a stupid high reading.
 
2013-09-05 05:55:54 PM  

digitalrain: dunno, but if they find so much as a seed in the drunk's vehicle, you can bet that the fact that he
was as drunk as a lord will be less than a footnote in this tale. All of a sudden, all the investigators,
media, officials, etc... will be talking about is how there was 'evidence' that he was high (mind you,
they won't rule it out w/ a blood test...they'll just dangle the speculation out there) and how sad
and ironic this was...what a tragedy it was...and how it is more unfortunate proof that marijuana is
a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad drug.


Yup.  It's getting pretty predictable.
 
2013-09-05 06:15:35 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I'd say your average pothead does, not the few notable exceptions.


The thing is, you obviously have no idea what an "average pothead" is beyond viewings of "Dazed and Confused" and Cheech and Chong movies.  Given the huge numbers given for its use one would expect to see a plethora of these "types" whereas we don't.  There is an obvious conclusion to draw here: that there are millions of people who smoke weed and who live perfectly normal lives and that the Floyd type characters are an outlier.  Some are extremely happy, some are very successful.  You simply cannot deal with the fact that there are people from all walks of life who can use a substance and yet not be defined by its effects.  One wonders if you have the same attitude towards alcohol - many more people drink than are alcoholics.  So what's your problem with it?  Why try to demonise a significant portion of the population based on caricatures and ignorance?
 
2013-09-05 06:19:03 PM  

The Envoy: Why try to demonise a significant portion of the population based on caricatures and ignorance?


It's the American Way.
 
2013-09-05 06:28:08 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Luse: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Luse: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 4 kids!? A burn out stoner with 4 kids? Where's the dad I wonder... Probably scraping resin out of an old bowl to get a small high before going to play frisbee golf with some arts students.

Or golfing with another burnout like Ahnold, who has 5 kids with a supermodel.

Farking burnout loser.

Yeah, that encapsulates your average pothead. Jesus

So who does?
George Bush? Clinton? Obama? Sagan?

I'd say your average pothead does, not the few notable exceptions.



That's a funny way of spelling "Top of their Field" or in the case of Mr. Phelps, "Most successful in his field in the history of Man".

You know what, here's a list of 50 more. http://www.mpp.org/outreach/top-50-marijuana-users-list.html

The simple fact is that 54% of Americans admitted to trying pot by age 21. That alone would mean that if you never tried it, the person you are looking at likely has, statistically speaking.
That is also just the ones who have admitted it to a perfect stranger.

So what does the "average pothead" look like?
 
2013-09-05 06:30:37 PM  

MayoSlather: PainfulItching: Robert1966: 1) Legalize weed and market and sell it as we do alcohol (with age limits, etc), giving similar penalties for impaired driving.
2) Distinguish between hazardous DUI - erratic driving or high-speed driving - and simple DUI, and change the penalties accordingly.
3) Raise the driving age to 18.

I disagree slightly with you.
1) Licensed MJ sales
2) Triple all current fines for moving violations,
3) Make negligent driving a felony equal to attempted manslaughter
4) DUI as listed previously

/yeah, I'm a hardass when it comes to piloting a big hunk of metal
//at high speed
///in close quarters with other people doing the same thing

Or we could opt to be reasonable, which is always the best course of action. Over reactive legislature is never a good idea.


Increase fines, reduce incarcerations, but make the jailtime count more. Lower numbers in longer. Because the penalty is not strong enough. More people are killed in automotive wrecks than everything but cancer and heart disease. When you add impairment, distraction, and negligence to an already risky proposition on failing roads, the deaths could be greatly reduced.
 
2013-09-05 06:32:58 PM  

hammer85: Dinki: JasonOfOrillia: I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

I have Crohns disease. Pot has been shown to not only provide relief from the symptoms, but to suppress most if not all of the effects of that annoying disease. But I can't legally use it here in Liberal NY because idiots have convinced themselves that the evil weed is dangerous. The fact that one of the most effective treatments for my disease is forbidden to me qualifies as oppression in my book.

Hi crohns buddy! I'm in va, it sucks.

Not sure if I would do weed to help it though. My wife already said no when I brought it up after a wow buddy of mine sent me a paper he did on the benefits of mj on crohns


Why is your wife making decisions about yhe appropriate treatment of your medical condition?
 
2013-09-05 06:38:16 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: "She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said.

I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

Unless you can't function until you get your hit of cannabinoids, in which case maybe it should be banned.

so by your definition you can't be oppressed unless you're deprived of something absolutely essential to your survival?
so if you were chained up and given bread and water you couldn't say you were being oppressed?

I had plenty of buddies who got into the habit of smoking up before school.  So much so that they couldn't get out of bed in the morning without taking a hit.  These are the sorts of people that would probably be better off never having come across the stuff.

I find it interesting that you are comparing a ban on weed to being chained up and only given bread and water.  You sound like an addict and you would be better off if you had never encountered the stuff.

I sound like an addict? you sound like a judgmental asshole who thinks he knows it all.

as for your buddies they probably had to get high just to put up with your pretentious ass.

My mistake.  It seems like you need to take a hit to calm down a little.  Don't worry, I'm not trying to oppress you.  And if weed is absolutely essential to your survival then you should have access to it.  I wouldn't want to do the equivalent of chaining you up and only giving you bread and water.


You are very special and insightful. Thank you for sharing your wisdom.
 
2013-09-05 06:41:27 PM  

Headso: hey gramps, it's 2013, people from all walks of life smoke pot now, it's been virtually legal in the most populous highest GDP state for almost 20 years.



Well, they are people, just like us - from within our own solar system. Except that their society is more highly evolved. I mean, they don't have no wars, they got no monetary system, they don't have any leaders, because, I mean, each man is a leader. I mean, each man - because of their technology, they are able to feed, clothe, house, and transport themselves equally - and with no effort...Why don't they reveal themselves to us is because if they did it would cause a general panic. Now, I mean, we still have leaders upon whom we rely for the release of this information. These leaders have decided to repress this information because of the tremendous shock that it would cause to our antiquated systems. Now, the result of this has been that the Venutians have contacted people in all walks of life - all walks of life[laughs] Yes. It-it-it would be a devastatin' blow to our antiquated systems - so now the Venutians are meeting with people in all walks of life - in an advisory capacity. For once man will have a god-like control over his own destiny. He will have a chance to transcend and to evolve with some equality for all.
 
2013-09-05 06:47:17 PM  
This is one of the few things as a Libertarian I can't stand.  The fact of the matter is, we don't have stronger laws because Lawyers and Judges get liquored up very frequently, and they don't want their own fish caught in the nets.

Make anything over .08 an automatic 1 year loss of license.  Make the 2nd offense license gone for 10 years and 1 year in jail.  3rd offense is jailable for life.

Make it draconian like they do it in Europe, and it'll stop.
 
2013-09-05 06:49:22 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Luse: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Luse: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 4 kids!? A burn out stoner with 4 kids? Where's the dad I wonder... Probably scraping resin out of an old bowl to get a small high before going to play frisbee golf with some arts students.

Or golfing with another burnout like Ahnold, who has 5 kids with a supermodel.

Farking burnout loser.

Yeah, that encapsulates your average pothead. Jesus

So who does?
George Bush? Clinton? Obama? Sagan?

I'd say your average pothead does, not the few notable exceptions.


I'm a department head with over 50 employees and I'm currently hiring 4 more.  I run an efficient arm of my plant and I'm generally regarded by my peers as successful.  I partake regularly, although I haven't for a few months because Mrs Egoy was until recently between jobs and it was an easy part of spending to cut.  I had no problem stopping it along with cigars, drinking and all the other unnecessary expenditures that I cut out of my budget. Hell stopping ourselves from dining out was the hardest thing to change.

Sorry to challenge your worldview but you're wrong about us.  The problem is that we don't walk around in shirts with pot leaves on them and talk like hippies.  Those people aren't stupid because they smoke pot. They are just stupid, and happen to smoke pot. The rest of us are discreet mature adults who aren't bothering anyone.
 
2013-09-05 07:13:07 PM  
I'm way more worried about drivers who text than drunk drivers. Most people should be but then they'd miss out on that sweet, sweet self-righteousness.
 
2013-09-05 07:15:56 PM  
It's kind of funny. My arguments here made me realize just how widespread the use is among incredibly successful people.

Top levels of all 3 branches of the government : Obama, Gingrich and Thomas.
Top executives of our most influential corporations: Jobs, Gates and Sergey Brin. (Google him if you don't know)
Top scientists awarded the Nobel Prize: Francis Crick, Kary Mullis and Richard Feynman.
 
2013-09-05 07:23:02 PM  

Fade2black: The fact of the matter is, we don't have stronger laws because Lawyers and Judges get liquored up very frequently, and they don't want their own fish caught in the nets.


That and counties make lots of money on fines from repeat offenders.
 
2013-09-05 07:25:53 PM  

quickdraw: Alphakronik: The good news is that her friends and family held a fundraiser for her 4 kids last night and raised just over $5,500.

If you feel like helping, you can do so though:  http://www.wepay.com/donations/297729414

Oh no... 4 kids!!!! arghhh so tragic.


And many other loved ones.

My little Denver community has been in the throes of massive heartbreak this week.

Jenny touched many lives and was a kind and giving soul. Her life was cut short by a repeat DUI offender with reckless indifference for others. What a farking waste.

/now back to your flame war
 
rka
2013-09-05 07:34:39 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: A proponent of a drug that's illegal was killed by someone under the influence of a legal drug.


Just a nit. MJ isn't illegal in Colorado.
 
2013-09-05 07:43:16 PM  

Fade2black: This is one of the few things as a Libertarian I can't stand.  The fact of the matter is, we don't have stronger laws because Lawyers and Judges get liquored up very frequently, and they don't want their own fish caught in the nets.

Make anything over .08 an automatic 1 year loss of license.  Make the 2nd offense license gone for 10 years and 1 year in jail.  3rd offense is jailable for life.

Make it draconian like they do it in Europe, and it'll stop.


No, it won't.
But, it could replace the pot "criminals" funding so many prisons.
 
2013-09-05 07:47:26 PM  

rattchett: hammer85: Dinki: JasonOfOrillia: I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

I have Crohns disease. Pot has been shown to not only provide relief from the symptoms, but to suppress most if not all of the effects of that annoying disease. But I can't legally use it here in Liberal NY because idiots have convinced themselves that the evil weed is dangerous. The fact that one of the most effective treatments for my disease is forbidden to me qualifies as oppression in my book.

Hi crohns buddy! I'm in va, it sucks.

Not sure if I would do weed to help it though. My wife already said no when I brought it up after a wow buddy of mine sent me a paper he did on the benefits of mj on crohns

Why is your wife making decisions about yhe appropriate treatment of your medical condition?


Because she's the wife and doesn't want mj in the house or near our future kids when it's completely illegal to use in va?

I also said I was cautious about using it as well. The study linked prior seemed to suggest frequent use, which would impair my ability to get to and from work, my work itself among other things
 
2013-09-05 08:09:22 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: JasonOfOrillia: JohnnyApocalypse: JasonOfOrillia: mediablitz: JasonOfOrillia: My mistake. It seems like you need to take a hit to calm down a little. Don't worry, I'm not trying to oppress you. And if weed is absolutely essential to your survival then you should have access to it. I wouldn't want to do the equivalent of chaining you up and only giving you bread and water.

Really trying to drive home the "pretentious asshole" part, aren't you?

What part of my statement is pretentious and how does it warrant the insult "asshole?"  All I did was turn the analogy around.

Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?

Good, bad, indifferent... many animals (not just humans) enjoy intoxication. It's not necessarily a primal drive, but if the wherewithal is there, boom! Fun time. Intoxication can be so many things... weed,  mescaline, acid, cocaine, uppers, downers, screamers, laughers, tequila, rum, beer, raw ether, amyls...

It could also be adrenaline rushes, risky behavior, romance chasers who enjoy being drunk on love. Anything that offers us a distortion from reality is eagerly enjoined by people out there. Hell, we can argue that religion, famously quoted as an opiate to the masses (though for a different reason), fills in for weed by millions.

Not all of them impair your ability to operate heavy machinery, but they may impair you in ways that weed never will. So what are you saying? Crush the human (and animal) spirit?

I'm not saying "Crush the human spirit" but I am saying that sometimes too much of this stuff can be a bad thing.  In these cases Society should have some right to put the brakes on.

what is more destructive?

1. A joint that lasts about 4-6 hours
2. A prison sentence that lasts about 5-20 years


Son, ya gotta embrace the "that'll teach the chit out of 'em" attitude.
Ya gotta grab it with both arms and convince yourself that because some idiot told you so, it works.
Can I get a Huzzah!
 
2013-09-05 08:50:30 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Internet Meme Rogers: JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: "She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said.

I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

Unless you can't function until you get your hit of cannabinoids, in which case maybe it should be banned.

so by your definition you can't be oppressed unless you're deprived of something absolutely essential to your survival?
so if you were chained up and given bread and water you couldn't say you were being oppressed?

I had plenty of buddies who got into the habit of smoking up before school.  So much so that they couldn't get out of bed in the morning without taking a hit.  These are the sorts of people that would probably be better off never having come across the stuff.

I find it interesting that you are comparing a ban on weed to being chained up and only given bread and water.  You sound like an addict and you would be better off if you had never encountered the stuff.

I sound like an addict? you sound like a judgmental asshole who thinks he knows it all.

as for your buddies they probably had to get high just to put up with your pretentious ass.

My mistake.  It seems like you need to take a hit to calm down a little.  Don't worry, I'm not trying to oppress you.  And if weed is absolutely essential to your survival then you should have access to it.  I wouldn't want to do the equivalent of chaining you up and only giving you bread and water.

If you can't answer the question, you're much better off just saying so. Or slinking out of the thread like a whipped cur.

Hobodeluxe made two statements:
1. I sound like an addict? you sound like a judgmental asshole who thinks he knows it all.
2. as for your buddies they probably had to get high just ...


It is if it's the most effective treatment for your illness/medical condition as shown by several studies but you can't have it because it's illegal, you self-righteous, pretentious twit. Particularly when that medical condition was caused by someone using a legal substance who nearly killed you because they thought they were just fine to drive.

Pot's not just for recreational use anymore, but you can't convince people of that because way back in WWI, DuPont wanted to make military uniforms, which were then made out of hemp. Had a buddy in Congress, dropped a word in his ear, and suddenly, marijuana--which is safer than alcohol on all levels--was suddenly a schedule I narcotic (on the level of cocaine and heroin) so that the Congressman's pal could get the US military materiel contract. Follow the money and see whose pockets it lines before you run your mouth.

Now sit down and shut up until you know what the fark you're talking about. Adults are talking.
 
2013-09-05 09:06:09 PM  
What a surprise, a Hispanic drives drunk and uninsured.
 
2013-09-05 09:16:55 PM  

hammer85: rattchett: hammer85: Dinki: JasonOfOrillia: I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

I have Crohns disease. Pot has been shown to not only provide relief from the symptoms, but to suppress most if not all of the effects of that annoying disease. But I can't legally use it here in Liberal NY because idiots have convinced themselves that the evil weed is dangerous. The fact that one of the most effective treatments for my disease is forbidden to me qualifies as oppression in my book.

Hi crohns buddy! I'm in va, it sucks.

Not sure if I would do weed to help it though. My wife already said no when I brought it up after a wow buddy of mine sent me a paper he did on the benefits of mj on crohns

Why is your wife making decisions about yhe appropriate treatment of your medical condition?

Because she's the wife and doesn't want mj in the house or near our future kids when it's completely illegal to use in va?

I also said I was cautious about using it as well. The study linked prior seemed to suggest frequent use, which would impair my ability to get to and from work, my work itself among other things


Sorry, I did not mean to sound snide.  Personally, I would try it if I thought it would result in relief.  However, that is easy for me to say since I live in Canada and the repercussions, while potentially serious generally aren't.  I would not suggest ingesting pot and going to work until such time as pot is medically prescribable in your jurisdiction.  If you're concerned about the hangover effect, I wouldn't be.  I do not smoke, but I used to, and I never notice a great deal of hangover/impairment once I was no longer high.
 
2013-09-05 09:19:17 PM  

Dinki: Yeah I've read a lot about  MM and Crohns lately- did you see the Israeli study? Impressive results. And I know many crohns sufferers that use pot for relief from the symptoms. Don't know if you've looked at Crohn's forum, but lots of info there. I haven't tried it yet, waiting for my vaporizor to arrive- suppose to be a much safer delivery system.


That Israeli study looks interesting, thanks for the link.

I'm another of the Fark Crohn's Brigade, since it seems we're all checking in.  I've used cannabis to treat the symptoms of the disease for six years now. Prior I took a godawful amount of opiates and bounced between pain from the opiate withdrawal to pain from the disease. There was a woman who lived in our apartment block who had MS that introduced me to medical marijuana (which is not to say I hadn't smoked before, but I was the type who enjoyed alcohol and stimulants), and were it not for her I'd likely be an oxycontin addict by now with the full cooperation of the lousy doctors I put up with for too long in Saskatchewan.

While Canada is a more liberal country on the surface I've encountered all kinds of resistance from specialists when it comes to cannabis, because a $5000/dosage drug in their mind has no cost issues for me and is preferable to a plant I can grow myself. Fortunately I have a good GP, but I've met people who are afraid to tell their doctor they use cannabis medicinally out of fear their doctor may then refuse further treatment. Of course this is the bible-belt of Canada too...


hammer85: ratchett:  Why is your wife making decisions about yhe appropriate treatment of your medical condition?

Because she's the wife and doesn't want mj in the house or near our future kids when it's completely illegal to use in va?

I also said I was cautious about using it as well. The study linked prior seemed to suggest frequent use, which would impair my ability to get to and from work, my work itself among other things


I smoke 2-3 grams a day, depending upon symptoms. Cannabis does wonders to help me eat (my appetite is generally non-existent), and to help my body relax after I eat and as food enters my colon (stirs up all kinds of nasty, but as my uncle says "you gotta poop to live", which is to say you gotta eat to live). I never drive within an hour of smoking but I also consume strains of cannabis cultivated for specific CBD and THC production levels that makes them good for medicinal use (but not very good for someone looking to get goofy). I do have little stoner moments now and again but usually they're limited to making an ass out of myself around here so no big woop. Honestly I don't give it much thought, the impairment from the disease is far far worse than occasional giggles or forgetting where I put something.

I certainly understand your desire not to be made a criminal for seeking relief from your pain, and I respect your choice whatever it is. I'd just like to say one Crohn's sufferer to another that cannabis has brought me much relief and dramatically improved my quality of life. I am a criminal by the laws of my country because I refuse to pay the government for a licence to grow and consume a plant, otherwise I'd likely be approved, but then I'd go on another watch list. My cannabis use is OK with my GP, and that's good enough for me..
 
2013-09-05 09:49:16 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: "She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said.

I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

Unless you can't function until you get your hit of cannabinoids, in which case maybe it should be banned.

so by your definition you can't be oppressed unless you're deprived of something absolutely essential to your survival?
so if you were chained up and given bread and water you couldn't say you were being oppressed?

I had plenty of buddies who got into the habit of smoking up before school.  So much so that they couldn't get out of bed in the morning without taking a hit.  These are the sorts of people that would probably be better off never having come across the stuff.

I find it interesting that you are comparing a ban on weed to being chained up and only given bread and water.  You sound like an addict and you would be better off if you had never encountered the stuff.

you better be careful, you are gonna throw out your hip or back avoiding points like that.


Which point am I avoiding?  Hobodeluxe made a comparison between being denied dope and being chained up and fed only bread and water.  It was a bad comparison.
 
2013-09-05 09:53:14 PM  

Aigoo: It is if it's the most effective treatment for your illness/medical condition as shown by several studies but you can't have it because it's illegal, you self-righteous, pretentious twit. Particularly when that medical condition was caused by someone using a legal substance who nearly killed you because they thought they were just fine to drive.

Pot's not just for recreational use anymore, but you can't convince people of that because way back in WWI, DuPont wanted to make military uniforms, which were then made out of hemp. Had a buddy in Congress, dropped a word in his ear, and suddenly, marijuana--which is safer than alcohol on all levels--was suddenly a schedule I narcotic (on the level of cocaine and heroin) so that the Congressman's pal could get the US military materiel contract. Follow the money and see whose pockets it lines before you run your mouth.

Now sit down and shut up until you know what the fark you're talking about. Adults are talking.


Maybe you should go back and look at my original statement where all I said was that banning dope for recreational use didn't rise to the level of oppression.  I didn't say anything about the politics behind the band or its therapeutic uses.  BTW, there were much better personal attacks against me further up the thread.
 
2013-09-06 02:20:27 AM  

JasonOfOrillia: Hobodeluxe: JasonOfOrillia: "She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said.

I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

Unless you can't function until you get your hit of cannabinoids, in which case maybe it should be banned.

so by your definition you can't be oppressed unless you're deprived of something absolutely essential to your survival?
so if you were chained up and given bread and water you couldn't say you were being oppressed?

I had plenty of buddies who got into the habit of smoking up before school.  So much so that they couldn't get out of bed in the morning without taking a hit.  These are the sorts of people that would probably be better off never having come across the stuff.

I find it interesting that you are comparing a ban on weed to being chained up and only given bread and water.  You sound like an addict and you would be better off if you had never encountered the stuff.


I hope you're trolling.  But just in case you're not quite bright, you can get addicted to the internet.  You wouldn't feel oppressed if the government banned the internet?

Many members of the underclasses have been oppressed right into prison, based on a "crime" that no rational person thinks should be a crime.  At the same time, the same crimes, if committed by wealthy persons, almost never results in prison time. If that isn't oppression, what is?
 
2013-09-06 03:01:23 AM  

knobmaker: I hope you're trolling. But just in case you're not quite bright, you can get addicted to the internet. You wouldn't feel oppressed if the government banned the internet?

Many members of the underclasses have been oppressed right into prison, based on a "crime" that no rational person thinks should be a crime. At the same time, the same crimes, if committed by wealthy persons, almost never results in prison time. If that isn't oppression, what is?


I'm not trolling.  Well, in my opinion I am not trolling but I suspect others would disagree.  If that means you think I'm "not quite bright" then you might as well get in line.:)

Anyway, I don't think using a ban of the internet is a very good comparison.  It is not likely to happen anytime soon, probably because there are too many upsides for too many people in having an internet.  This is probably what marks things as oppressive.  Much in the same way that a recession is when your neighbor loses his job and a depression is when you lose your job, a persons opinion about government intervention into some issue is going to seem much worse when it impacts that persons lifestyle.  I don't smoke-up.  I would if there were a medical reason to do so but I have none.  I do drink but if society banded together and banned booze then I'd go along.  Me drinking is a luxury and recreational and I could easily survive without it.

What seems to frustrate so many in this thread is that I don't see the big deal about banning recreational use of a drug.  I certainly don't see it as oppressive.

As stated above I believe that unequal application of law is oppressive.  I think you'll find many laws governing more things than just dope use are applied asymmetrically.  In that case it is the application of the laws which is oppressive, not the laws themselves.
 
2013-09-06 03:20:10 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: JasonOfOrillia: "She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said.

I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.

Unless you can't function until you get your hit of cannabinoids, in which case maybe it should be banned.

you mean like the people with Dravet Syndrome?

/you did know that THC is the psychoactive ingredient, not the cannabinoids... right?


Tetrahydrocannabinol (/ˌtɛtrəˌhaɪdrɵkəˈnæbɨnɔːl/ tet-rə-HY-drə-kə-NAB-i-nawl or /ˌtɛtrəˌhaɪdrɵkəˈnæbɨnɒl/ tet-rə-HY-drə-kə-NAB-i-nol;[5] THC), or more precisely its main isomer (−)-trans-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol ((6aR,10aR)-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), is the principal psychoactive constituent (or cannabinoid) of the cannabis plant.
 
2013-09-06 06:47:59 AM  

JasonOfOrillia: Duck_of_Doom: JasonOfOrillia: I think we are arguing past each other.  I'm not saying that weed should be illegal, I'm saying society banning weed for recreational purposes doesn't rise to the level of "oppression."

So your argument is that he misspoke.  Or that using extreme qualifiers for dramatic effect leads to miscommunication.  That is fine, and true.  Oppression is different from opposition or illegality.  As for your argument on temperance: you can't legislate behavior.  This is unfortunate (because I'd love to throw some people in jail for being idiots) but for the best.  That's where social pressures and standards come into play.  They are far better at modulating behaviors of peers and effecting social conditioning than any law.

I largely agree with your statements.  My original comment about the article was directed towards Mr. DePinto's statement about oppression.  It seemed hyperbolic.  Most laws are expressions of some limits desired by society.  In general, the greater the agreement with a law the greater the compliance with that law and the less sympathy there is for those who break the law.  Most of the most successful laws we have are ones that agree with social pressures and standards.


Like slavery at one time? Until the weight of public opinion turned against it, I guess according to your definition, slavery was not oppression.

Drug laws are oppressive. They punish drug users with harsh sentences for choosing to consume a substance. The laws dictate what adults may or may not do with their bodies. And the underlying reason mirrors your own philosophy - people should not be allowed to find pleasure in substances. If the drugs are for medicinal reasons, then that's fine (although many people - not saying you - prefer the drug be a pill manufactured by a drug company). But don't do drugs if they're fun because that's immoral and you're a druggie.
 
2013-09-06 09:02:57 AM  
rattchett: Drug laws are oppressive. They punish drug users with harsh sentences for choosing to consume a substance. The laws dictate what adults may or may not do with their bodies. And the underlying reason mirrors your own philosophy - people should not be allowed to find pleasure in substances. If the drugs are for medicinal reasons, then that's fine (although many people - not saying you - prefer the drug be a pill manufactured by a drug company). But don't do drugs if they're fun because that's immoral and you're a druggie.

I drink Jack straight because I like the taste. If only it was non-alcoholic...
 
2013-09-06 10:33:16 AM  

Loadmaster: cannabis is safer than alcohol.

Loadmaster: [Citation needed]

busy chillin': deliberately obtuse? One liquor store has enough alcohol to kill an entire family. There isn't enough weed in all of the dispensaries to kill one person.

So that's the only criteria for "safe"? I guess operating potentially lethal heavy machinery with impaired mental faculties (like Dinki's example) just doesn't count. My bad.


I didn't realize people were desiring cannabis to be legalized so they could run heavy machinery while high.

This isn't Nam. There would be rules.
 
2013-09-06 10:33:26 AM  

Hiro-ACiD: Dinki: Yeah I've read a lot about  MM and Crohns lately- did you see the Israeli study? Impressive results. And I know many crohns sufferers that use pot for relief from the symptoms. Don't know if you've looked at Crohn's forum, but lots of info there. I haven't tried it yet, waiting for my vaporizor to arrive- suppose to be a much safer delivery system.

That Israeli study looks interesting, thanks for the link.

I'm another of the Fark Crohn's Brigade, since it seems we're all checking in.  I've used cannabis to treat the symptoms of the disease for six years now. Prior I took a godawful amount of opiates and bounced between pain from the opiate withdrawal to pain from the disease. There was a woman who lived in our apartment block who had MS that introduced me to medical marijuana (which is not to say I hadn't smoked before, but I was the type who enjoyed alcohol and stimulants), and were it not for her I'd likely be an oxycontin addict by now with the full cooperation of the lousy doctors I put up with for too long in Saskatchewan.

While Canada is a more liberal country on the surface I've encountered all kinds of resistance from specialists when it comes to cannabis, because a $5000/dosage drug in their mind has no cost issues for me and is preferable to a plant I can grow myself. Fortunately I have a good GP, but I've met people who are afraid to tell their doctor they use cannabis medicinally out of fear their doctor may then refuse further treatment. Of course this is the bible-belt of Canada too...


hammer85: ratchett:  Why is your wife making decisions about yhe appropriate treatment of your medical condition?

Because she's the wife and doesn't want mj in the house or near our future kids when it's completely illegal to use in va?

I also said I was cautious about using it as well. The study linked prior seemed to suggest frequent use, which would impair my ability to get to and from work, my work itself among other things

I smoke 2-3 grams a day, dep ...


Try oral consumption.
Works much better and avoids CO exposure, a possible trigger for unwanted effects.
 
2013-09-06 11:05:07 AM  

rattchett: JasonOfOrillia: Duck_of_Doom: JasonOfOrillia: I think we are arguing past each other.  I'm not saying that weed should be illegal, I'm saying society banning weed for recreational purposes doesn't rise to the level of "oppression."

So your argument is that he misspoke.  Or that using extreme qualifiers for dramatic effect leads to miscommunication.  That is fine, and true.  Oppression is different from opposition or illegality.  As for your argument on temperance: you can't legislate behavior.  This is unfortunate (because I'd love to throw some people in jail for being idiots) but for the best.  That's where social pressures and standards come into play.  They are far better at modulating behaviors of peers and effecting social conditioning than any law.

I largely agree with your statements.  My original comment about the article was directed towards Mr. DePinto's statement about oppression.  It seemed hyperbolic.  Most laws are expressions of some limits desired by society.  In general, the greater the agreement with a law the greater the compliance with that law and the less sympathy there is for those who break the law.  Most of the most successful laws we have are ones that agree with social pressures and standards.

Like slavery at one time? Until the weight of public opinion turned against it, I guess according to your definition, slavery was not oppression.

Drug laws are oppressive. They punish drug users with harsh sentences for choosing to consume a substance. The laws dictate what adults may or may not do with their bodies. And the underlying reason mirrors your own philosophy - people should not be allowed to find pleasure in substances. If the drugs are for medicinal reasons, then that's fine (although many people - not saying you - prefer the drug be a pill manufactured by a drug company). But don't do drugs if they're fun because that's immoral and you're a druggie.


I'm not disagreeing with that.  I'm not even saying that dope should be illegal.  All I'm saying is that bans on the recreational use of marijuana do not rise to the level of oppression.  And, as with other comparisons thrown out in this thread, it is not equivalent to slavery.
 
2013-09-06 11:13:40 AM  

Quaker: JasonOfOrillia: I had plenty of buddies who got into the habit of smoking up before school.  So much so that they couldn't get out of bed in the morning without taking a hit.  These are the sorts of people that would probably be better off never having come across the stuff.

Regardless, it's not the government's place to tell them that they can't do it. You could make the same arguments about alcohol, tobacco, fast food, large sugary drinks, etc.

Also, I have to wonder if you feel the same way about the millions of people who fully admit that they can't get going in the morning or that they're not themselves until they have their coffee.


Sorry, I missed your comment yesterday in the storm.

If society decides that coffee is more bad for society than good then of course it has the right to ban it.  I don't think it's going to happen but it has the power.  It might ban it based on false information but that ban would not rise to the level of oppression.
 
2013-09-06 11:20:19 AM  

snocone: JasonOfOrillia: Dinki: JasonOfOrillia: That being said my original point, that the banning of recreational use of weed didn't rise to the level of "oppression," is still my opinion even if others in the thread disagree with me.

If the penalties for the  recreational use of weed were simply confiscation of the weed, I would agree with you. But they aren't. When peoples lives are destroyed, when the penalties for possession and 'sale' i.e. passing a joint to a friend are worse than some violent crimes, than I think it rises to the level of oppression.

In the case of people who are using it to fight something like Crohn's disease or to increase appetite and suppress nausea during chemotherapy I would agree with you.  If it is people buying dope to get high on the weekend then it is an entirely voluntary matter.  In that case society can and has put bans on things.  The bans might be stupid but society can do this.  If it is not necessary then it doesn't rise to the level of oppression.  Just like banning violent video games would irritate me but wouldn't oppress me.  Or banning booze would irritate me but not oppress me.

With your medical background, are you considering any other diagnoses?


Another comment I missed yesterday.  Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

Where did I make a diagnosis?  All I did was state that I'm fine with therapeutic uses for drugs.  I don't know if dope helps with these things but there are certainly a lot of anecdotes around.  I would hope that the use of these substances as medicines would be done in a scientific manner.  None of that has any bearing on my original point which is that a ban on recreational use of a drug does not rise to the level of oppression.
 
2013-09-06 11:30:20 AM  

scottydoesntknow: JasonOfOrillia: I think we are arguing past each other. I'm not saying that weed should be illegal, I'm saying society banning weed for recreational purposes doesn't rise to the level of "oppression."

What about if society had zero say in banning weed? Everyone knows it was a bunch of corrupt politicians that wanted to see that demon weed banned. Society had no say whatsoever.


Another one I missed yesterday.  Sorry about the delay in getting back to you.

If society had zero say in banning weed then slightly more people would probably smoke it.

I'm sure some of the politicians who passed these bans were not corrupt.  I don't know what the proportion is.  To say that "Society had no say whatsoever " would imply that there is no democratic representation.  While there are issues of elites buying access to craft laws that benefit them, to say that society hasn't had a say is a bit extreme.  Especially given the historical, if not current, popular support for laws against dope.
 
2013-09-06 11:39:36 AM  

Luse: JasonOfOrillia: mediablitz: JasonOfOrillia: My mistake. It seems like you need to take a hit to calm down a little. Don't worry, I'm not trying to oppress you. And if weed is absolutely essential to your survival then you should have access to it. I wouldn't want to do the equivalent of chaining you up and only giving you bread and water.

Really trying to drive home the "pretentious asshole" part, aren't you?

What part of my statement is pretentious and how does it warrant the insult "asshole?"  All I did was turn the analogy around.

Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?

It has brought us so much good. Record level incarceration rates. Militarized police departments. Cartels. Billions of dollars for privatized prisons.
Just SO many benefits to us we can barely count.
All over a substance which at the very least the last 3 presidents, the worlds most famous body builder and the world's most succesfull Olympian have used.

So many benefits!


The rightness of a ban depends on the benefit of the ban measured against the costs of the ban.  The argument that society trying to prevent people from getting lit on the weekend is somehow oppressive doesn't fly with me.

Anyway, I'm not sure that your statement that the last three presidents, the world's most famous body builder and the world's most successful Olympian have used dope is relevant.  Are you saying it made them more successful?  If so then by what mechanism?  If not then how would banning it prevent their success?
 
2013-09-06 11:45:43 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: what is more destructive?

1. A joint that lasts about 4-6 hours
2. A prison sentence that lasts about 5-20 years


Definitely the prison sentence.  Still doesn't mean that a ban on weed is oppressive.
 
2013-09-06 11:53:51 AM  

JasonOfOrillia: rattchett: JasonOfOrillia: Duck_of_Doom: JasonOfOrillia: I think we are arguing past each other.  I'm not saying that weed should be illegal, I'm saying society banning weed for recreational purposes doesn't rise to the level of "oppression."

So your argument is that he misspoke.  Or that using extreme qualifiers for dramatic effect leads to miscommunication.  That is fine, and true.  Oppression is different from opposition or illegality.  As for your argument on temperance: you can't legislate behavior.  This is unfortunate (because I'd love to throw some people in jail for being idiots) but for the best.  That's where social pressures and standards come into play.  They are far better at modulating behaviors of peers and effecting social conditioning than any law.

I largely agree with your statements.  My original comment about the article was directed towards Mr. DePinto's statement about oppression.  It seemed hyperbolic.  Most laws are expressions of some limits desired by society.  In general, the greater the agreement with a law the greater the compliance with that law and the less sympathy there is for those who break the law.  Most of the most successful laws we have are ones that agree with social pressures and standards.

Like slavery at one time? Until the weight of public opinion turned against it, I guess according to your definition, slavery was not oppression.

Drug laws are oppressive. They punish drug users with harsh sentences for choosing to consume a substance. The laws dictate what adults may or may not do with their bodies. And the underlying reason mirrors your own philosophy - people should not be allowed to find pleasure in substances. If the drugs are for medicinal reasons, then that's fine (although many people - not saying you - prefer the drug be a pill manufactured by a drug company). But don't do drugs if they're fun because that's immoral and you're a druggie.

I'm not disagreeing with that.  I'm not even saying that dope should be ...


You put it out there that the view of the community is determinative as to whether a a law is oppressive or not.  I am not trying to equate slavery and drug prohibition. I am merely suggesting that you may wish to revisit your opinion with respect to community standards and whether they have any bearing on whether a law is oppressive.  Obviously, there have been and are laws that only impact a small minority.  That does not change the fact that they're oppressive.
 
2013-09-06 12:11:21 PM  

rattchett: You put it out there that the view of the community is determinative as to whether a a law is oppressive or not. I am not trying to equate slavery and drug prohibition. I am merely suggesting that you may wish to revisit your opinion with respect to community standards and whether they have any bearing on whether a law is oppressive. Obviously, there have been and are laws that only impact a small minority. That does not change the fact that they're oppressive.


I think my point is more that when an activity is recreational then banning it isn't oppressive.  The use of this substance for non-therapeutic reasons is just people wanting to get effed up on the weekend.  I can sympathize with this sort of activity but a ban on this sort of thing doesn't seem extreme to me.  It is an entirely voluntary activity.
 
2013-09-06 01:11:51 PM  
Civil discourse?  On my Fark?
 
Displayed 239 of 239 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report