Mr. President! Governator! Here's the answer
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Marijuana culture destroyed my family and many other families in the area I grew up in.
It wasn't the marijuana, it simply does not work like that. Maybe your family just couldn't handle life.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
CSS_Shadow(); wrote:
It wasn't the marijuana, it simply does not work like that. Maybe your family just couldn't handle life.
They had thrived on the worst that life could throw at them for generations. One generation after being introduced to marijuana, they were all suddenly as dysfunctional as you are.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Marijana needs to be legal in the first place, and there should be no taxes except sales tax.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
CSS_Shadow(); wrote:
Marijana needs to be legal in the first place, and there should be no taxes except sales tax
You still couldn't afford it. You can't even spell it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Because the good ol' Christian Right is always blameless, huh.
No, just more rational.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, just more rational.
:laugh: You're joking, right? The Christian Right...more rational? :laugh:
-
CSS_Shadow(); wrote:
It wasn't the marijuana, it simply does not work like that. Maybe your family just couldn't handle life.
They had thrived on the worst that life could throw at them for generations. One generation after being introduced to marijuana, they were all suddenly as dysfunctional as you are.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
So your families weak souls were devoured.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
led mike wrote:
social conservatives?
Zepplin is a flaming liberal.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
Hardly.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Yeah, because just what the world needs are more people on opiates and dope.
It's doubtful that the result would be more people, although those people would be less likely to die, and less likely to commit crime. In my mind, it's not about accepting something, it's about better controlling it, and limiting the cost to society.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Yeah, meanwhile, who's going to pay for the New Addicts' health care? Do you know how much tobacco smokers tax the health system? Marijuana smoking is worse - if someone's dumb enough to smoke it, I sure don't want to pay for their care. Socialized medicine should be a priveledge, not a right. I don't mind paying taxes for health care because I think people should have access to it. However, if you engage in activities that are well known to have significant health effects, then I think people like that should be forced to pay a higher premium, or a higher tax on their income.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
It's doubtful that the result would be more people
Wait, you think you can use logic and reality to argue with social conservatives? You have a lot to learn. ;)
I'm not a conservative. You missed my point. Canada's health care system, for example, is being overrun. Legalizing drungs that are similar (arguably worse) than tobacco will tax the system even more. Canada has tried to decriminalize marijuana, and the results are not as hoped. Usage has increased and all that will result is increased burden on the health care system. I am in favour of socialized medicine - I am not in favour of socialized medicine that is freely available to people who engage in activities that put one's health at risk. That's not why socialized medicine is available.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, just more rational.
:laugh: You're joking, right? The Christian Right...more rational? :laugh:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You're joking, right? The Christian Right...more rational?
Yes. The obvious association between religion and civilization is inherently more rational than is the notion that civilization can exist without it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I'm not a conservative. You missed my point. Canada's health care system, for example, is being overrun. Legalizing drungs that are similar (arguably worse) than tobacco will tax the system even more. Canada has tried to decriminalize marijuana, and the results are not as hoped. Usage has increased and all that will result is increased burden on the health care system. I am in favour of socialized medicine - I am not in favour of socialized medicine that is freely available to people who engage in activities that put one's health at risk. That's not why socialized medicine is available.
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's not why socialized medicine is available.
Once you have socialized one thing, you have socialized everything.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You're joking, right? The Christian Right...more rational?
Yes. The obvious association between religion and civilization is inherently more rational than is the notion that civilization can exist without it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes. The obvious association between religion and civilization is inherently more rational than is the notion that civilization can exist without it.
No. The Bible says that the Earth has four corners [Isaiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1 ], rests on pillars [ Job 9:6 ], has edges [ Job 38:12-13 ] and is flat [ Isaiah 40:18-23, Job 38:14, Matthew 4:1-12 ]. It's obviously completely ridiculous and civilisations have only progressed as much as they have on the back of scientific progress. There is no evidence of a quarter of the Egyptian population just up and leaving one day, no evidence of a great flood, no ark, no canopies of water. Society doesn't need it, and you've failed so far to prove that it does.
-
led mike wrote:
As opposed to how well prohibition was working and the war on Drugs still is? And that was the exact point Jefferson was making. You know, the real life Jefferson, not the fictional Shannonantisyland one that you like to imagine existed.
That isn't the point at all. The point is the system is broke. The reason you even need to tax dope is becuase the system is broke. You aren't going to fix it by taxing irresponsible behavior. You're simply going to have a failed system with even more irresponsible behavior. It has nothing to do with Jefferson, or hemp or prohibition or anything else. The system is completely and utterly broken, taxing dope is not going to make any fucking difference.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The point is the system is broke.
Duh, it was way back then as well, nothing new. We had Deming[^] trying to install sound principles in US business but they didn't listen so he went to Japan. Now we all are going to pay the price. All we are seeing is the modern fire fighting approach to problem solving. We had an opportunity 60 years ago to listen to Deming and build our economy on sound principles, the deciders decided to go with greed instead. Now we are trying to apply a band aid to a human characteristic that is seriously broken. Always has been and probably always will be and is the reason the free market cannot work long term. It is possible that the only flaw in the free market theory is that humans have to implement it. So basically I agree with your point. However it doesn't change what I posted about you and Jefferson.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's not why socialized medicine is available.
Once you have socialized one thing, you have socialized everything.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Once you have socialized one thing, you have socialized everything.
What? Really? Then let's go find the first US socialized instance in history to determine when the US became a socialist state. Not sure but would that be the Postal Service? 1775
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The point is the system is broke.
Duh, it was way back then as well, nothing new. We had Deming[^] trying to install sound principles in US business but they didn't listen so he went to Japan. Now we all are going to pay the price. All we are seeing is the modern fire fighting approach to problem solving. We had an opportunity 60 years ago to listen to Deming and build our economy on sound principles, the deciders decided to go with greed instead. Now we are trying to apply a band aid to a human characteristic that is seriously broken. Always has been and probably always will be and is the reason the free market cannot work long term. It is possible that the only flaw in the free market theory is that humans have to implement it. So basically I agree with your point. However it doesn't change what I posted about you and Jefferson.
led mike wrote:
However it doesn't change what I posted about you and Jefferson.
You people all use Jefferson for your own self serving purposes. The only politically significant aspect of Thomas Jefferson's entire existence was (a) the declaration of independence, and (b) anti-federalism. The form of democracy Jefferson worked to create was first and foremost about decentralizing political power - taking it out of the hands of a central authority and giving it to the people at the state and local level of government so that they might create the kind of societies they wished to live within the bounds of a strict interpretation of the constitution. He may have had many thoughts on many other topics, but they are irrelevant to any discussion of AMerican politics. That isn't some fantasy version of Jefferson, thats the real deal for any historically valid point of view. The people called "social conservatives" today were pretty much in full control of society during Jefferson's lifetime, and, aside from the occassional letter of political advice to someone or other, he seems to have been perfectly comfortable with that situation. In fact, he seems to have done everything he possibly could to foster and encourage it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes. The obvious association between religion and civilization is inherently more rational than is the notion that civilization can exist without it.
No. The Bible says that the Earth has four corners [Isaiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1 ], rests on pillars [ Job 9:6 ], has edges [ Job 38:12-13 ] and is flat [ Isaiah 40:18-23, Job 38:14, Matthew 4:1-12 ]. It's obviously completely ridiculous and civilisations have only progressed as much as they have on the back of scientific progress. There is no evidence of a quarter of the Egyptian population just up and leaving one day, no evidence of a great flood, no ark, no canopies of water. Society doesn't need it, and you've failed so far to prove that it does.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Society doesn't need it, and you've failed so far to prove that it does.
Yet you cannot refute the altogether scientific observation that there is a 100% correlation between civilization and religion. Now, correlation might not be causation, but such a close association certainly suggest some causal relationship of some kind. The less religious our own civilization has become, the more dysfunctional it becomes, following precisely the same pattern demonstrated repeatedly throughout history. If that isn't proof, it is certainly reason for concern.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Once you have socialized one thing, you have socialized everything.
What? Really? Then let's go find the first US socialized instance in history to determine when the US became a socialist state. Not sure but would that be the Postal Service? 1775
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">led mike wrote:</div>Not sure but would that be the Postal Service? 1775</blockquote> The postal service is not a socialist program, neither is building roads or other 'general welfare' type projects. Socialistic programs are those predicated upon the the transfer of wealth from one group to another - such as universal health care. But now we are legalizing drug abuse so that we can try to repair an ecnomic system crippled by those very socialistic programs. But doing that is going to increase the need for more money on those very programs. The problem is only going to get worse. It is an inevitable and insidious process which has only one possible conclusion - full blown communism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Society doesn't need it, and you've failed so far to prove that it does.
Yet you cannot refute the altogether scientific observation that there is a 100% correlation between civilization and religion. Now, correlation might not be causation, but such a close association certainly suggest some causal relationship of some kind. The less religious our own civilization has become, the more dysfunctional it becomes, following precisely the same pattern demonstrated repeatedly throughout history. If that isn't proof, it is certainly reason for concern.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
What makes you say that civilisation is dysfunctional? :confused: Civilisations throughout history have only fallen because they were conquered by another, or because they could no longer physically sustain themselves. They've never crumbled out of disillusionment. And you're ignoring the main point, that Christianity and other religions are ludicrous and have no bearing on reality.
-
What makes you say that civilisation is dysfunctional? :confused: Civilisations throughout history have only fallen because they were conquered by another, or because they could no longer physically sustain themselves. They've never crumbled out of disillusionment. And you're ignoring the main point, that Christianity and other religions are ludicrous and have no bearing on reality.
While I don't disagree with your opinion on religion, the point Stan is trying to make is that religion provides a uninfying identity and system of morals that cannot be paralled by nationalism and government-sanctioned morality.
-
While I don't disagree with your opinion on religion, the point Stan is trying to make is that religion provides a uninfying identity and system of morals that cannot be paralled by nationalism and government-sanctioned morality.
Is there an alternative, do you think, that doesn't rely on people closing their eyes to the world?
-
Is there an alternative, do you think, that doesn't rely on people closing their eyes to the world?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Is there an alternative, do you think, that doesn't rely on people closing their eyes to the world?
Well, that's the problem, isn't it?
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Is there an alternative, do you think, that doesn't rely on people closing their eyes to the world?
Well, that's the problem, isn't it?
Yeah... Oh well, screw it. To hell with people! They can do whatever, I don't care.