T1B

I feel it should be legalized. By maintaining the current poilicies we are only giving the power of regulation and distrubution to those who are already involved illegal activities. Our tax dollars spent on law enforcemnet could be put to much better use than to hunting down the average american who takes a seat in his living room and lights up a doobie, such as the rapist or child molestor living across town.

You didn't think you were going to build all those prisons and have them half full, did you?


"...the average american who takes a seat in his living room and lights up a doobie, such as the rapist or child molestor living across town."

Hiding behind the arguement of Moral relativism?
You drug addicted, Hollywierd, perverted, God hating liberals make me sick.

Martyred wrote:You didn't think you were going to build all those prisons and have them half full, did you?


"...the average american who takes a seat in his living room and lights up a doobie, such as the rapist or child molestor living across town."

Hiding behind the arguement of Moral relativism?
You drug addicted, Hollywierd, perverted, God hating liberals make me sick.

For starters I am a republican conservative who doesn't smoke it personally. I just feel my tax dollar can be put to better use. Try a new argument rather than attacking me with arguments that are invalid concerning me.

SunCoastSooner wrote:

Martyred wrote:You didn't think you were going to build all those prisons and have them half full, did you?


"...the average american who takes a seat in his living room and lights up a doobie, such as the rapist or child molestor living across town."

Hiding behind the arguement of Moral relativism?
You drug addicted, Hollywierd, perverted, God hating liberals make me sick.

For starters I am a republican conservative who doesn't smoke it personally. I just feel my tax dollar can be put to better use. Try a new argument rather than attacking me with arguments that are invalid concerning me.

If you're truly a Republican conservative, you can start by getting on board your party's anti-drug platform.
Do that, or risk being Powell-ized or McCain-icized.

Does your "It's all the Jews Fault" site tell you that lie too Marty ?





http://www.savethemales.ca/000357.html

http://www.savethemales.ca/000334.html

Gee, I guess Powell, McCain etc. haven't been marginalized...and I'm a big liar.

Are you weighing in on the druggie's side , Tom?

So your telling me that to believe in an over all political philosophy requires me to march step in tow with a party platform and and negate any personally thought on my own part. :roll:

So your telling me that to believe in an over all political philosophy requires me to march step in tow with a party platform and and negate any personally thought on my own part. :roll:

Martyred wrote:Gee, I guess Powell, McCain etc. haven't been marginalized...and I'm a big liar.

Are you weighing in on the druggie's side , Tom?

Why yes I am. I think it's ludicrous or Ludicris.

I believe that weed is a plant. I believe it can be taxed and revnue earned from it's sale. I believe money can be saved by decriminalizing it. I also believe that just like booze, some people can handle it, some people cannot. The people that cannot will have to choose to suffer the consequences of their choices just like those that cannot handle booze.

The "lie" you told was that SunCoast couldn't be a Republican Conservative holding these beliefs.

Unfortunately, it does appear as if Powell and McCain have been marginalized.

SunCoastSooner wrote:So your telling me that to believe in an over all political philosophy requires me to march step in tow with a party platform and and negate any personally thought on my own part. :roll:

You obviously have never read a Dr. D post.

I guess that's what I'm getting at. Nothing personal.

Martyred wrote:Gee, I guess Powell, McCain.............

........are irrelevancies.



And McCain is a fucking jerkoff and an idiot to boot.


As far as pot, it should be left to the states.

Diogenes wrote:

Martyred wrote:Gee, I guess Powell, McCain.............

........are irrelevancies.



And McCain is a fucking jerkoff and an idiot to boot.


As far as pot, it should be left to the states.

Thank you for proving my point on Powell, McCain...etc...


"...
As far as pot, it should be left to the states."

Don't hide behind the 'State's Rights' shield, coward.
The federal govt. influence is weighty and far reaching.

Martyred wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Martyred wrote:Gee, I guess Powell, McCain.............

........are irrelevancies.



And McCain is a fucking jerkoff and an idiot to boot.


As far as pot, it should be left to the states.

Thank you for proving my point on Powell, McCain...etc...

You're point being that they marginalized themselves?


"...
As far as pot, it should be left to the states."

Don't hide behind the 'State's Rights' shield, coward.
The federal govt. influence is weighty and far reaching.

Who's hiding, idiot?

My point is that it is too much so.

And in this case, without a compelling interest.

The 'compelling interest' is naional security.

As in, denying terrorist the revenue from drug trafficking sales they would use to wage terror campaigns and buy WMD's.

Martyred wrote:The 'compelling interest' is naional security.

As in, denying terrorist the revenue from drug trafficking sales they would use to wage terror campaigns and buy WMD's.

I think that's more the heroine and opium trade.

Shit, weed, grows man. Just look at some of the posts from our folks out in NoCal.

Marijuana traffick isn't a multi-billion dollar industry because "weed grows".

Smoke a joint. Bomb a supermarket.

Legalize it, or at least decriminalize it.

RadioFan wrote:Legalize it, or at least decriminalize it.

Not in the U.S.-of-fucking A.

The Prison Industrial Complex must be fed.

RadioFan wrote:Legalize it, or at least decriminalize it.

Or at least put the State's Rights option on your idiotic poll.

Diogenes wrote:Or at least put the State's Rights option on your idiotic poll.

I'd take that option as well.

I tend to lean towards keeping it illegal. Spend any amount of time around a place like Sierra Tucson or Betty Ford as I have with a family member and you will see the long lasting devestation pot can bring.

Perfect example is the guy who is high and gets behind the wheel of his car. Dude is just going to the corner store for some munchies. Problem is he misses the red light and plows into a car with the right of way. In the other car is a family of 4 who all die. What was that Suncoast about the cops ignoring the guy who was high for the rapist? It would be the same as ignoring drinking and driving.

Keep it criminal. Who cares about increased tax monies as it would just go to pork anyway.

Booze has destroyed countless lives. They don't stop selling that.

It's a simple fact, some people can deal with it and enjoy themselves responsibly and some people cannot. For those that cannot, they would be wise to abstain.

I don't see the difference between weed and booze in this matter.

Left Seater wrote:I tend to lean towards keeping it illegal.

No shit you do. You're already on record supporting a theocracy. What kind of theocracy would keep its mitts off the habits of its citizenry?

Tom In VA wrote:Booze has destroyed countless lives. They don't stop selling that.

It's a simple fact, some people can deal with it and enjoy themselves responsibly and some people cannot. For those that cannot, they would be wise to abstain.

I don't see the difference between weed and booze in this matter.

my position exactly. only reason the two vices don't have the same status is beer's lobby.

professionally, I like the status quo. thank you, beer money.

BSmack, back away from the Theocracy claims. I never said I wanted the Pope or others to lead our country.

However, I feel those type of groups do a much better job of feeding the hungry or giving shelter to those in the cold than the govt does.

Left Seater wrote:BSmack, back away from the Theocracy claims. I never said I wanted the Pope or others to lead our country.

However, I feel those type of groups do a much better job of feeding the hungry or giving shelter to those in the cold than the govt does.

If you are asking churches to perform governmental roles, then you are supporting a theocracy.

I don't think he's suggesting that.

I support his view in this and I believe it's the other way around.

The government should not be performing the functions of the church and other private institutions that uphold the virtue of charity.

The Government is supposed to protect and defend the land so that we can earn a living. For the people who cannot or will not earn one, it is up to the churches to help them.

Exactly Tom, the government should not be in the charity business. There are many effeciencies that volunteers can achieve that govt can't.

BSmack, if you think these examples are the role of government then we need to discuss that before trying to label each other.

Rack it and pass it, Tom.

The jobs generated by the criminal justice system to administer punishment to marijuana enthusiats are the only reason these inept and antiquated laws were created in the first place... and to keep the brown man down.

Denying patients the right to possess and use medically prescribed marijuana is criminal.

BSmack, you're trying to look at the camel's teeth from the wrong end of the camel.

Left Seater wrote: Legalized does not mean unregulated.

precisly my point.

SunCoastSooner wrote:

Left Seater wrote: Legalized does not mean unregulated.

precisly my point.

Brownies for lunch much?

Tom In VA wrote:I don't think he's suggesting that.

I support his view in this and I believe it's the other way around.

The government should not be performing the functions of the church and other private institutions that uphold the virtue of charity.

The Government is supposed to protect and defend the land so that we can earn a living. For the people who cannot or will not earn one, it is up to the churches to help them.

Translation: Fuck the poor, let God sort em out.

Furthermore, I defy you to show me how the govenment can turn over the role of social saftey net over to organized religions without giving money to said organized religions. Do you think that people will give money to churches once their taxes go down?

This country went through a time called the Great Depression. We emerged from that time to fight WWII and became the pre eminent power the world has ever seen. Yet in 1960, at the apex of our political and economic clout, poverty was still at 22%. That's right, relying on the churches to uphold the "virtue of charity" meant that 1 out of every 5 Americans lived below the poverty line.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/po ... verty.html

Nowdays the poverty rate is around 12%. That is still unacceptable. But you are going to have to do a lot of sweet talking to get me to belive that a system that relies on the goodness of man will ever be effective. Madison, for one, would have laughed in your face for that assumption.

Fuck the poor, let God sort em out.

You're an emotional basket case.

Join a church, get involved. Contribute time and money.


You're just too lazy, you want the government to take care of it for you. That's what you're all about apparently.

Nobody ever said the Government should completely withdraw providing some basic services to the people. It's just far too much. Rather than a bloated bureacratic nightmare, private charitable firms (regulated and monitored heavily) do a better job. They do a better job because people who give a shit volunteer.

But you are going to have to do a lot of sweet talking to get me to belive that a government that relies on the goodness of man will ever be effective. I'm sure somebody famous thought of that too.

:P

You conservatives turn into libertarians soooooo easily when confronted with a selfish lifestyle choice like drug use.

Phonies.

Martyred wrote:You conservatives turn into libertarians soooooo easily when confronted with a selfish lifestyle choice like drug use.

Phonies.

I don't do drugs.

I think the criminalization of weed is a waste of money.

You're just blind.

Tom In VA wrote:You're an emotional basket case.

Join a church, get involved. Contribute time and money.

I believe in no organized form of religion. The only thing organized religion is good for is war and corruption. Look it up.

You're just too lazy, you want the government to take care of it for you. That's what you're all about apparently.

I've got 24 hours in a day. Said day is already full with work and family. If the poor are counting on me, they’re fucked.

Nobody ever said the Government should completely withdraw providing some basic services to the people. It's just far too much. Rather than a bloated bureacratic nightmare, private charitable firms (regulated and monitored heavily) do a better job. They do a better job because people who give a shit volunteer.

No they DON'T Tom. I just showed you that they don't. The churches had 200 years to fight poverty and, quite frankly, they SUCK at it.

But you are going to have to do a lot of sweet talking to get me to belive that a government that relies on the goodness of man will ever be effective. I'm sure somebody famous thought of that too.

That would be James Madison. You know, the whole concept of separation of powers.

Suncoast, I understand the regulation of it like alcohol, but beer doesn't lead to cocaine like pot sometimes does.

BSmack,

I think things would be different if religion handled most of the charity functions and the govt reduced their role. As it is now those who really need help often stay away from the help religions offer and instead go to the govt for the no strings attached handouts. Most of the time the help the religious community offers also tries to get these people off of drugs or alcohol, while the government hand outs don't. If there were no other place for these people to turn they would likely accept more of the rules.

And your arguement that people wouldn't donate to charity if their taxes went down can only be based on what you would do. Right now my wife and I make both personal and business donations to reduce our taxes. However, since we are business owners there are some years based on our income level that we can't claim these deductions. That doesn't keep us from making them. Rather the donations are made as part of our being. Not everyone would act as you would.

There's always non-denominational charities. There is nothing stopping anyone from setting one up.

Left Seater wrote:Suncoast, I understand the regulation of it like alcohol, but beer doesn't lead to cocaine like pot sometimes does.

The only reason that Pot is a "gateway" drug is that for the average law abiding citizen (otherwise) has to come in contact with those who are most likely to also be providing other illegal services. If mom and pop in their pharmacy down the street were selling a pack of marijuana cigs I doubt that they would also be carrying around a couple of Kilos of Cocaine, heroine, ect.

Its sad that my 13 year old cousin can obtain a bag of pot substantially easier than he could a six pack. To use the mom and pop scenario again... I doubt that they would be handing out dime bags or what ever people smoke these days to a 12 year old where as the people we have distributing it right now are already criminals who hold no reservations about commiting such acts..

SunCoastSooner wrote:Its sad that my 13 year old cousin can obtain a bag of pot substantially easier than he could a six pack.

When you put it that way, I may have to rethink my position on legalization. :wink: