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 244
    More: Ironic, marijuana activist, drunk drivers, vehicular homicide, activists, Shutterstock, marijuana  
•       •       •

8200 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»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 244 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report