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  
•       •       •

8187 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Sep 2013 at 2:14 PM (31 weeks 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 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?
 
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