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

(Gawker)   Prominent marijuana activist killed by drunk driver   (gawker.com) divider line 52
    More: Ironic, marijuana activist, drunk drivers, vehicular homicide, activists, Shutterstock, marijuana  
•       •       •

8223 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-09-05 12:56:44 PM  
8 votes:
This isn't even Alanis Morissette ironic.
2013-09-05 12:58:02 PM  
6 votes:
Jenny "Kush" Friede, a prominent Denver medical marijuana activist, was killed this weekend after a drunk driver headed the wrong way down an Interstate slammed into her car.

[...]

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


No. No it isn't. It is tragic and a good example of the point she was trying to make.
2013-09-05 06:49:22 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:12:52 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:01:59 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:24:30 PM  
3 votes:

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


it doesn't mine because I don't drive on it.
but the test they use might say that I was under the influence even though I wasn't because it will show positive for weeks after use.
I wonder how the drinkers in the country would fare with that kind of standard put on them?
2013-09-05 02:20:19 PM  
3 votes:

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

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


Maybe not the first offense but I'd be OK with mandatory 1 year in jail for second DUI conviction. Fark drunk drivers.
2013-09-05 06:15:35 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:41:51 PM  
2 votes:

Loadmaster:   cannabis is safer than alcohol.

[Citation needed]


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

Citation.
2013-09-05 03:10:23 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:50:07 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:25:54 PM  
2 votes:

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


Yeah because they all say that....

/only drove stoned once- ran a stop sign and almost killed my sister. Weed and driving don't mix, just like alcohol and driving.
2013-09-05 02:20:38 PM  
2 votes:
In before potheads claiming that weed doesn't affect their ability to drive.
2013-09-05 01:38:33 PM  
2 votes:

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


The correct answer is death to anyone blowing a .08 or higher. Right there on the side of the road. Leave the body as an example.
2013-09-05 01:14:13 PM  
2 votes:
Was the drunk driver also high on weed?
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-05 01:03:14 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


What that intoxicating substances don't mix with driving?
2013-09-06 10:33:16 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:47:59 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:20:27 AM  
1 votes:

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?
2013-09-05 07:13:07 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:28:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:36:52 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

Farking burnout loser.

Yeah, that encapsulates your average pothead. Jesus


hey gramps, it's 2013, people from all walks of life smoke pot now, it's been virtually legal in the most populous highest GDP state for almost 20 years.
2013-09-05 05:33:21 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

Farking burnout loser.

Yeah, that encapsulates your average pothead. Jesus


So who does?
George Bush? Clinton? Obama? Sagan?
2013-09-05 05:25:55 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

Farking burnout loser.
2013-09-05 04:03:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:03:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:51:55 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:48:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:44:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:42:15 PM  
1 votes:
Good. Us alcoholics stopped him from using a gateway drug.
2013-09-05 03:41:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:39:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:06:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:04:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:58:43 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:49:36 PM  
1 votes:
If weed is such a wonder drug then why can't it cure my rampant alcoholism?  Answer that one, hippie.
2013-09-05 02:47:16 PM  
1 votes:
Nadie_AZ:
No. No it isn't. It is tragic and a good example of the point she was trying to make.

At what point, and I'm just spit-balling here, at what point can we just agree that "Ironic" also means the thing that every single person in the world thinks that it means?  I'm all for being superior and correcting people, but this word is just gone now.  Let's let it go.
2013-09-05 02:45:02 PM  
1 votes:
Rain makes corn
Corn makes whiskey
Whiskey makes my driving..
Kinda risky

... marijuana and whiskey are both organic. I don't see the conflict ..
2013-09-05 02:43:49 PM  
1 votes:
  cannabis is safer than alcohol.

[Citation needed]
2013-09-05 02:38:31 PM  
1 votes:
i.telegraph.co.uk
It was like rain on your wedding day.
2013-09-05 02:35:04 PM  
1 votes:
If weed didn't also cause impairment then it would be ironic.
2013-09-05 02:33:02 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


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

I find it interesting that you are comparing a ban on weed to being chained up and only given bread and water.  You sound like an addict and you would be better off if you had never encountered the stuff.
2013-09-05 02:30:58 PM  
1 votes:

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


I have Crohns disease. Pot has been shown to not only provide relief from the symptoms, but to suppress most if not all of the effects of that annoying disease. But I can't legally use it here in Liberal NY because idiots have convinced themselves that the evil weed is dangerous. The fact that one of the most effective treatments for my disease is forbidden to me qualifies as oppression in my book.
2013-09-05 02:28:30 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


How many before we get to shoot them?

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


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

I'd like to see the laws be more straightforward, not "let me pay my way out of this".
2013-09-05 02:27:13 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


so by your definition you can't be oppressed unless you're deprived of something absolutely essential to your survival?
so if you were chained up and given bread and water you couldn't say you were being oppressed?
2013-09-05 02:26:10 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


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

Driving is not a right, it's a priviledge and it should be treated as such at least until we have fully automated cars that require no human input.
2013-09-05 02:24:23 PM  
1 votes:
Her last night on Earth was a Phish concert.  The woman who killed her had been busted for DUI before.  So much tragedy.
2013-09-05 02:24:15 PM  
1 votes:
"She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said.

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

Unless you can't function until you get your hit of cannabinoids, in which case maybe it should be banned.
2013-09-05 02:21:42 PM  
1 votes:
The only way to kill a good guy with buds is to fill a bad guy with Buds.
2013-09-05 02:19:02 PM  
1 votes:
Its ironic on a social level where we allow a known dangerous drug to be ubiquitous and yet demonize a mostly harmless one.

Are we spend billions on a War on Drunks?
2013-09-05 01:41:42 PM  
1 votes:
See? Marijuana is dangerous.
2013-09-05 01:32:25 PM  
1 votes:
Obviously, we should ban liquor. Or was that tax cuts for the rich? I can't keep the authoritarian response straight anymore.
 
Displayed 52 of 52 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report