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  
•       •       •

8204 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 39 of 239 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 »
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