Mark Levin: Drugs are not a victimless crime

[Brian4Liberty]

Caught a few minutes of Levin on the radio today. He was taking aim essentially at libertarian types who say that drugs are a victimless crime. He said that people die from overdoses and stuff, so there are victims. He wants to debate anyone who wants to decriminalize drugs. He says he'll rip 'em apart. Any takers?

[RJB]

I would say policing, judicializing, politicizing, and prison industrial complexing are not victimless crimes.

[presence]

Ferris Wheels are not a victimless crime.


Tennessee Ferris wheel accident victim suffered a head injury (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2016/aug/09/tennessee-ferris-wheel-accident-victim-suffered-head-injury/380310/)Chattanooga Times Free Press‎ - 1 day ago

Three people fell from a Tennessee Ferris wheel when their car flipped over, investigators say, and one remains hospitalized with a head injury ...Ferris wheel victims' mother gives update (http://www.wbir.com/news/ferris-wheel-victims-mother-gives-update/293840518)WBIR.com‎ - 3 hours ago

3 Girls Injured In Fall From Ferris Wheel At Tennessee Fair (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/09/489337146/3-girls-injured-after-falling-from-ferris-wheel-at-tennessee-fair)NPR‎ - 1 day ago

[Dr.3D]

So why doesn't he think people should be able to make their own decisions? I for one, am tired of being protected from myself.

If I ate rat poison and it killed me, nobody should be blamed but me. They don't blame the person who sold me the rat poison.

[juleswin]

I would argue that cheating on your spouse by having unprotected sex is much more of a crime with victims than drug use. But i bet even him would come out against govt trying to protect society from that type of crime.

[CaptUSA]

How many people die of alcohol poisoning? Crime???
How many people die from swimming? Crime???

We could play this game all day long.

[orafi]

Foreign wars and nation building are not victimless crimes.

[Ender]

Caught a few minutes of Levin on the radio today. He was taking aim essentially at libertarian types who say that drugs are a victimless crime. He said that people die from overdoses and stuff, so there are victims. He wants to debate anyone who wants to decriminalize drugs. He says he'll rip 'em apart. Any takers?

Hmmm..... I'd say......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI189E_xA3s

[heavenlyboy34]

If he doesn't want to ban alcohol and refined sugar, he's not serious. Huge waste of time. Move on to someone with the brains to debate rationally.

[misterx]

He's right. I'm just not comfortable banning things though unless absolutely necessary. We have to ban nuclear and biological weapons because the consequences are just so catastrophic. Drugs don't fall into that category, although they are extremely damaging to society. I'm inclined to let people destroy their own lives though if that's what they want. It's a really tough issue.

[misterx]

That's like saying if you don't want to ban handguns you can't ban nuclear weapons. They aren't equivalent.

[Brian4Liberty]

Anyone who likes to call into radio shows should take him up on his offer.

[heavenlyboy34]

He's right. I'm just not comfortable banning things though unless absolutely necessary. We have to ban nuclear and biological weapons because the consequences are just so catastrophic. Drugs don't fall into that category, although they are extremely damaging to society. I'm inclined to let people destroy their own lives though if that's what they want. It's a really tough issue.
There's some truth to that-to the extent that people use drugs to escape problems-ditto for alcohol. But I've seen people nearly eat themselves to death and indulge in electronic entertainment to the point of harming the rest of their lives. Addiction is sad and srs bizniss-not to be left to the politicians, do-gooders, SJWs, and assorted other self-righteous know-nothings.

[Uriel999]

Drug use is not victimless...but it should not be a crime.

[AuH20]

He's right and wrong. Reckless drug behavior is subsidized in this country at a heavy price. It would be easier to be detached from the poor choices that an individual makes, but our nanny like society has us all joined at the hip. Obesity is another health related condition that the public gets stuck with the bill more often than not.

[Origanalist]

Anyone who likes to call into radio shows should take him up on his offer.

I used to listen to him years back. Why waste your time? As soon as you started getting the better of him he would just turn nasty and cut off your mike.

[John F Kennedy III]

Caught a few minutes of Levin on the radio today. He was taking aim essentially at libertarian types who say that drugs are a victimless crime. He said that people die from overdoses and stuff, so there are victims. He wants to debate anyone who wants to decriminalize drugs. He says he'll rip 'em apart. Any takers?

In overdose cases, the only victim is the user. That's a big difference from stealing a car or setting a house on fire.

[TheTexan]

So why doesn't he think people should be able to make their own decisions? I for one, am tired of being protected from myself.

If I ate rat poison and it killed me, nobody should be blamed but me. They don't blame the person who sold me the rat poison.

Was there a warning on the Rat Poison that indicates that poison is toxic? If not, it might be cause for lawsuit if ingested

[heavenlyboy34]

So why doesn't he think people should be able to make their own decisions? I for one, am tired of being protected from myself.

If I ate rat poison and it killed me, nobody should be blamed but me. They don't blame the person who sold me the rat poison.

Nanny Statism is one thing the Stupid Right has in common with the Stupid Left. :P

[misterx]

In overdose cases, the only victim is the user. That's a big difference from stealing a car or setting a house on fire.

Except for the widowed spouse, and the kids with only one parent. Also the person who ends up getting carjacked by that kid after he's screwed up from losing his dad to a drug overdoes at the age of 10. The consequences are widespread. Not to sound like a liberal, but we really do live in a community where our actions have an effect on each and every one around us.

[tod evans]

Except for the widowed spouse, and the kids with only one parent. Also the person who ends up getting carjacked by that kid after he's screwed up from losing his dad to a drug overdoes at the age of 10. The consequences are widespread. Not to sound like a liberal, but we really do live in a community where our actions have an effect on each and every one around us.

"Our actions" criminalized substances for profit and continue to do so, your fruitless arguments only serve to perpetuate that poor decision.

"Drug control" is a fairly modern invention and any argument you or anyone else can wage to support it flies in the face of literally centuries of human existence without it.

Every argument you or anybody can wage in support of the "Just-Us" department being involved in drugs can be effectively countered by simply pointing out that it is governments involvement that has brought both stigma and violence to 'drugs'...

[misterx]

"Our actions" criminalized substances for profit and continue to do so, your fruitless arguments only serve to perpetuate that poor decision.

"Drug control" is a fairly modern invention and any argument you or anyone else can wage to support it flies in the face of literally centuries of human existence without it.

Every argument you or anybody can wage in support of the "Just-Us" department being involved in drugs can be effectively countered by simply pointing out that it is governments involvement that has brought both stigma and violence to 'drugs'...

Where did I say it should be regulated by the government? It should be regulated by society. The most effective way to keep drug use down is by having a social stigma attached to it.

[tod evans]

Where did I say it should be regulated by the government? It should be regulated by society. The most effective way to keep drug use down is by having a social stigma attached to it.

Regulated.........regulations...........enforcemen t..........

See a pattern?

The idea that your neighbors consumption of anything is your business is wrong on its face.

Your neighbors behavior may be your business but why he behaves a certain way isn't.

[misterx]

Regulated.........regulations...........enforcemen t..........

See a pattern?

The idea that your neighbors consumption of anything is your business is wrong on its face.

Your neighbors behavior may be your business but why he behaves a certain way isn't.

Perhaps not, but what my friends and family do are my business. If people were not so tolerant of others making bad choices, there wouldn't be so many people making bad choices. If you do drugs in Japan you get disowned, and if you get disowned it's hard to find a job. Needless to say drug use is far lower there, and everyone is better off for it. You're only half right. I don't have the right to tell my neighbor that he can't do drugs, but I do have the right not to associate with him if he does.

[TheTexan]

Drugs should absolutely stay illegal. Drugs are bad and people who use drugs are bad. I can say this with certainty because an Officer told me this in school as part of the DARE program.

Need another beer, I'm starting to lose my buzz

[tod evans]

Perhaps not, but what my friends and family do are my business. If people were not so tolerant of others making bad choices, there wouldn't be so many people making bad choices. If you do drugs in Japan you get disowned, and if you get disowned it's hard to find a job. Needless to say drug use is far lower there, and everyone is better off for it. You're only half right. I don't have the right to tell my neighbor that he can't do drugs, but I do have the right not to associate with him if he does.

You should, and do, have the 'right' to not associate with anybody for any reason.

Government will argue and enforce their position that you don't though.........

[TheTexan]

Perhaps not, but what my friends and family do are my business. If people were not so tolerant of others making bad choices, there wouldn't be so many people making bad choices. If you do drugs in Japan you get disowned, and if you get disowned it's hard to find a job. Needless to say drug use is far lower there, and everyone is better off for it. You're only half right. I don't have the right to tell my neighbor that he can't do drugs, but I do have the right not to associate with him if he does.

Thank you for doing your part to ostracize these people so they can't be productive members of society.

They could certainly use your help in Colorado. People are getting way too comfortable with drug use over there. First marijuana, then what? LSD? Shrooms? Imagine the horror if people got addicted to these dangerous substances, living forever in a bad trip they can't escape from because these substances are so incredibly addictive.

Thank you so much for helping to lay judgment on these people, but we still have so much more work to do!

[misterx]

You should, and do, have the 'right' to not associate with anybody for any reason.

Government will argue and enforce their position that you don't though.........

Then we are in complete agreement.

[TheTexan]

Perhaps we can create a "shame" website to publically shame people we know who use drugs.

Or create a "shame" meetup group that meets up biweekly at a local pub or cigar lounge

[tod evans]

Thank you for doing your part to ostracize these people so they can't be productive members of society.

They could certainly use your help in Colorado. People are getting way too comfortable with drug use over there. First marijuana, then what? LSD? Shrooms? Imagine the horror if people got addicted to these dangerous substances, living forever in a bad trip they can't escape from because these substances are so incredibly addictive.

Thank you so much for helping to lay judgment on these people, but we still have so much more work to do!

You must not forget that old and sick people who opt to dull their pain without a government approved doctors permission slip are evil too!

These scoff-laws perpetuate the sales and use or drugs that actually are addictive...:eek:

If they were good neighbors.........Nay!...........If they were good Americans! They would either pay the doctors and pharmacists or suffer stoically...

[TheTexan]

You must not forget that old and sick people who opt to dull their pain without a government approved doctors permission slip are evil too!

These scoff-laws perpetuate the sales and use or drugs that actually are addictive...:eek:

If they were good neighbors.........Nay!...........If they were good Americans! They would either pay the doctors and pharmacists or suffer stoically...

Agreed completely. It broke my heart the other day, to learn that, my own mother, was using Ambien, that was not prescribed to her.

I had no choice, but to report her.

[tod evans]

Agreed completely. It broke my heart the other day, to learn that, my own mother, was using Ambien, that was not prescribed to her.

I had no choice, but to report her.

Another avenue of reproach is the scoff-law parents who refuse to give their male children government approved speed during their formative years...

Schools and their government paid employees must be protected from the exuberance of young boys and it has been proven that speed will actually curb that exuberance..

Those who would question the authority and knowledge of government approved doctors and education professionals must be shamed and shunned too!

[lilymc]

although they are extremely damaging to society.

I fully agree. I hate drugs with a passion. And the lame, cliché responses to threads like this ("Drugs are bad, mkay?") also suck.

[tod evans]

I fully agree. I hate drugs with a passion. And the lame, cliché responses to threads like this ("Drugs are bad, mkay?") also suck.

Drugs just are, kind of like guns or cars they're something people use..............Or misuse.

Makes more sense to hate people than things but do whatever suits you.

[lilymc]

Drugs just are, kind of like guns or cars they're something people use..............Or misuse.

Makes more sense to hate people than things but do whatever suits you.

Well, to be more exact, it's the action of drug abuse and what it does to people (and society) that I hate.

I don't hate people, I try to separate actions from the person. So I disagree that it makes more sense to hate the person. :)

[John F Kennedy III]

Agreed completely. It broke my heart the other day, to learn that, my own mother, was using Ambien, that was not prescribed to her.

I had no choice, but to report her.

Reported for reporting.

[tod evans]

Well, to be more exact, it's the action of drug abuse and what it does to people (and society) that I hate.

I don't hate people, I try to separate actions from the person. So I disagree that it makes more sense to hate the person. :)

You're a better person than I am..

[Brian4Liberty]

I used to listen to him years back. Why waste your time? As soon as you started getting the better of him he would just turn nasty and cut off your mike.

Sorry, had to LOL. I've heard it called Willie, heard it called Dick, never called Mike... ;)

[Christian Liberty]

I would argue that cheating on your spouse by having unprotected sex is much more of a crime with victims than drug use. But i bet even him would come out against govt trying to protect society from that type of crime.

It is MUCH MORE so, to the point where its not even in the same ballpark. Honestly, while I'm not a libertarian, I think only the strongest bias toward secularism or sheer pragmatism could really lead one to think adultery ought to be legal. Even in an NAP based framework, adultery is clearly a breaking of contract and thus a crime.

But then people like Murray Rothbard come up with artificial "title transfer theories" for contracts... well yeah because they're seculars and they don't want things like adultery to be able to be crimes, not because they actually have good reasons for the arbitrary distinction :p

As for drugs, Levin is wrong but he does also sort of have a point. To presume that drugs are totally harmless to anyone but the user is false, but that doesn't mean they should be illegal. Some people think the "no harm principle" and the "non-aggression principle" are the same principle but they're actually VERY different, with the former actually allowing quite a bit of statism while the latter is really only an anarcho-capitalist principle. of course, I think both extremes lead to problems :P

[heavenlyboy34]

It is MUCH MORE so, to the point where its not even in the same ballpark. Honestly, while I'm not a libertarian, I think only the strongest bias toward secularism or sheer pragmatism could really lead one to think adultery ought to be legal. Even in an NAP based framework, adultery is clearly a breaking of contract and thus a crime.

But then people like Murray Rothbard come up with artificial "title transfer theories" for contracts... well yeah because they're seculars and they don't want things like adultery to be able to be crimes, not because they actually have good reasons for the arbitrary distinction :p

As for drugs, Levin is wrong but he does also sort of have a point. To presume that drugs are totally harmless to anyone but the user is false, but that doesn't mean they should be illegal. Some people think the "no harm principle" and the "non-aggression principle" are the same principle but they're actually VERY different, with the former actually allowing quite a bit of statism while the latter is really only an anarcho-capitalist principle. of course, I think both extremes lead to problems :P

This depends on context. WRT civil marriage, you're right. WRT strictly religious marriage, it's a sacrament and covenant, not a legally binding contract. This doesn't mean it's less "valuable" than other things (it's actually much more valuable than most earthly things), it just means it's beyond the purview of governments. It's the business of clergy.

[Christian Liberty]

This depends on context. WRT civil marriage, you're right. WRT strictly religious marriage, it's a sacrament and covenant, not a legally binding contract. This doesn't mean it's less "valuable" than other things (it's actually much more valuable than most earthly things), it just means it's beyond the purview of governments. It's the business of clergy.

Honestly this is ultimately where libertarianism becomes unChristian, it actively REQUIRES governments to have different priorities than God does.

[tod evans]

Honestly this is ultimately where libertarianism becomes unChristian, it actively REQUIRES governments to have different priorities than God does.

I'm not a libertarian either but my understanding is that the philosophy accepts all Gods and none of them equally.

[Dr.3D]

Sorry, had to LOL. I've heard it called Willie, heard it called Dick, never called Mike... ;)
No wonder that woman was trying to cover the mike at the convention.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not a libertarian either but my understanding is that the philosophy accepts all Gods and none of them equally.

My point is that according to the Bible adultery is worthy of death with only the victm having the right to reduce or rescind the punishment but libertarianism requires governing authorities to refrain from punishing it as its "not aggression." Clearly the scriptures disagree with libertarianism here.

[tod evans]

My point is that according to the Bible adultery is worthy of death with only the victm having the right to reduce or rescind the punishment but libertarianism requires governing authorities to refrain from punishing it as its "not aggression." Clearly the scriptures disagree with libertarianism here.

And what does Christianity, libertarianism or adultery have to do with drugs in the context of the OP?

My apologies for contributing to the derail...

[Christian Liberty]

And what does Christianity, libertarianism or adultery have to do with drugs in the context of the OP?

My apologies for contributing to the derail...

Someone said adultery had more of a victim than drug use (which is true.) I responded that libertarians are being inconsistent to allow adultery since its an abuse of contract. HB34 responded to me, which led to my comment, which lead to yours.

[misterx]

Agreed completely. It broke my heart the other day, to learn that, my own mother, was using Ambien, that was not prescribed to her.

I had no choice, but to report her.

I know someone who was almost killed by her husband because he was taking unprescribed Ambien. That stuff really messes with your head. If you weren't trolling, I'd say perhaps an intervention is in order.

[bunklocoempire]

What has Levin done on his own, or with others to voluntarily address or combat this issue?

I bet the list is extensive.

If he's promoting continued failed government policy and aggression to mess with human nature and market law, he and his friends have surely tried everything else voluntary under the sun...

I mean you just wouldn't start with grabbing a gun and waving it around, unless you were on drugs or something.

[TheTexan]

I know someone who was almost killed by her husband because he was taking unprescribed Ambien. That stuff really messes with your head. If you weren't trolling, I'd say perhaps an intervention is in order.

Yes, unprescribed Ambien is very dangerous. The prescribed version,, is much safer.

[JK/SEA]

i thought Levin was all about the Constitution?...seems he wants to resurrect the 18th Amendment...

the guy is smart one minute, then a complete drool donkey the next....

hat tip to REV9 for the drool donkey reference.

[heavenlyboy34]

My point is that according to the Bible adultery is worthy of death with only the victm having the right to reduce or rescind the punishment but libertarianism requires governing authorities to refrain from punishing it as its "not aggression." Clearly the scriptures disagree with libertarianism here.

Plz re-read what Jesus said about the adultress in John 8. Christians must view the OT in light of the New. Taking the OT out of this context is for Judaizers, heretics, and generally confused folks.

[Christian Liberty]

Plz re-read what Jesus said about the adultress in John 8. Christians must view the OT in light of the New. Taking the OT out of this context is for Judaizers, heretics, and generally confused folks.

Jesus hadnt died yet, so the interpretation that he was attacking the Pharisees for doing exactly what they'd been told doesn't hold up

[tod evans]

Yes, unprescribed Ambien is very dangerous. The prescribed version,, is much safer.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!

[heavenlyboy34]

Jesus hadnt died yet, so the interpretation that he was attacking the Pharisees for doing exactly what they'd been told doesn't hold up

Doesn't matter. Christians aren't to read the OT like you are. Jesus was the Theanthropos (Word Made Flesh). For the Christian, all scripture must be viewed from the New Covenant understanding. (you can make up your own stuff if you want, but don't expect it to be accepted as "Christian" by any significant number of people) The study notes and articles in the OSB bible will help you(here (https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=KAh2OOGPsMMC&source=productsearch&utm_source=HA_Desktop_US&utm_medium=SEM&utm_campaign=PLA&pcampaignid=MKTAD0930BO1&gl=US&gclid=COnjl9ymus4CFVNifgod8_YEIg&gclsrc=ds) and on amazon).

[osan]

Caught a few minutes of Levin on the radio today. He was taking aim essentially at libertarian types who say that drugs are a victimless crime. He said that people die from overdoses and stuff, so there are victims. He wants to debate anyone who wants to decriminalize drugs. He says he'll rip 'em apart. Any takers?

I'd debate that in a heartbeat. He would get the dry-cornholing of his life.

Why waste my time?

[osan]

Except for the widowed spouse

Not a victim.


kids with only one parent

Not victims.


Also the person who ends up getting carjacked by that kid after he's screwed up from losing his dad to a drug overdoes at the age of 10.

You have got to be joking.

Next...


The consequences are widespread.

CAN be.


Not to sound like a liberal, but we really do live in a community where our actions have an effect on each and every one around us.

You sound JUS like a liberal because this is textbook liberal logic FAIL.

By your apparent reasoning, ANY human action is invalid because it effects others. If I'm at a party and fart, someone MIGHT leave for the balcony and then they MIGHT fall off, 50 stories to their deaths. Husband is widowed. Children are down a mom, who was the sole bread winner and whose parents commit suicide due to grief. Kids, all fucked up because of my fart, take to rape and robbery, for which I must answer.

Therefore, I should be forbidden from farting at parties.

This line of hopelessly failed reasoning, taken to its absurd conclusion would mandate all humans be eliminated because everything they do has a POTENTIAL effect on other humans. First order preposterousness up one side, down the other, and all around.

FAIL.

PS: it is clear you are not an engineer, seeing as you are not familiar with the phenomenon of DAMPING. I will not explain it to you, but there is an analog in human activity and it speaks directly and with great force to the failed notions you have attempted to disseminate here. I seriously suggest you learn about it and ponder how it applies in the ways I have stated. It will improve your thinking greatly on matters such as this.

PPS: your reasoning fails to take into account the responsibilities of others for their choices, focusing only on those of the subject at hand. You asymmetrically assign responsibility for personal action.

Über-, mega-, hyper-, ULTRA-FAIL.

[Ender]

My point is that according to the Bible adultery is worthy of death with only the victm having the right to reduce or rescind the punishment but libertarianism requires governing authorities to refrain from punishing it as its "not aggression." Clearly the scriptures disagree with libertarianism here.

But JESUS does not.

[John F Kennedy III]

Plz re-read what Jesus said about the adultress in John 8. Christians must view the OT in light of the New. Taking the OT out of this context is for Judaizers, heretics, and generally confused folks.

Yeah, essentially read the OT. But don't follow any of it's rules.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yeah, essentially read the OT. But don't follow any of it's rules.
Sorta. The rules and commandments are clarified in the NT.

[Brian4Liberty]

Levin is at it again right now. Now he says if any "leaders" of this movement want to debate him he'll debate them. Basically calling out the ACLU and Kochs now. His big gripe today is letting out drug criminals.

[osan]

Agreed completely. It broke my heart the other day, to learn that, my own mother, was using Ambien, that was not prescribed to her.

I had no choice, but to report her.

OK, OK... I confess... I'm drinking unprescribed champagne. Report me too. Please. I want to pay my debt to society.

[osan]

Levin is at it again right now. Now he says if any "leaders" of this movement want to debate him he'll debate them. Basically calling out the ACLU and Kochs now. His big gripe today is letting out drug criminals.

Is this not an oxymoron?

OTOH, Levin is just a moron.

[heavenlyboy34]

Is this not an oxymoron?

OTOH, Levin is just a moron.

The real drug criminals are the Medical-industrial complex. Not only have these crooks destroyed Americans' health, they've fleeced them.

[Theocrat]

He's right. I'm just not comfortable banning things though unless absolutely necessary. We have to ban nuclear and biological weapons because the consequences are just so catastrophic. Drugs don't fall into that category, although they are extremely damaging to society. I'm inclined to let people destroy their own lives though if that's what they want. It's a really tough issue.

Your comment against drugs is yet another argument based on the fallacy of reification (ascribing animate qualities to inanimate objects). Drugs don't damage society; it's the people who use drugs that have the potential to cause problems in a society, just as it's not guns that kill people, but the people who use guns immorally. Drugs can't do anything to a society until a person uses them, for recreation/medicine or for financial profit.

But even if you want to argue that drug usage harms society in total, why should federal and state governments be the first lines of defense to stop its detriment? There are plenty of churches and private organizations devoted to help with drug abuse and addiction. That's where the solution needs to take place, from a "bottom-up approach." The system of a free market is much better and, dare I say, more holy than the political whims from federal and state governments to take care of drug habits that could be disastrous to a community or society.

[osan]

Yes, unprescribed Ambien is very dangerous. The prescribed version,, is much safer.

Unprescribed Viagra is even worse... or so I hear.

[heavenlyboy34]

Your comment against drugs is yet another argument based on the fallacy of reification (ascribing animate qualities to inanimate objects). Drugs don't damage society; it's the people who use drugs that have the potential to cause problems in a society, just as it's not guns that kill people, but the people who use guns immorally. Drugs can't do anything to a society until a person uses them, for recreation/medicine or for financial profit.

But even if you want to argue that drug usage harms society in total, why should federal and state governments be the first lines of defense to stop its detriment? There are plenty of churches and private organizations devoted to help with drug abuse and addiction. That's where the solution needs to take place, from a "bottom-up approach." The system of a free market is much better and, dare I say, more holy than the political whims from federal and state governments to take care of drug habits that could be disastrous to a community or society.

+rep :) ~hugs~

[Brian4Liberty]

Levin backtracked a little today. He said if you just want to "decriminalize", then that may be OK. It's letting out previously convicted "drug criminals" that is the problem.

He does have a point on who to release. If the criminal justice system had not been so perverted with easy drug convictions for other criminal activity, then there wouldn't be a problem. His corner case here is supporting convictions of real criminals on trumped up drug charges. I.e. Real murderer convicted on drug possession charges because the system is so screwed up that the real crime of murder is excused but drug charge is pursued. Then you have drug users mixed in with that. How to separate them is problematic. If the system was not so corrupt and perverted, then separating them wouldn't be an issue.

[misterx]

Your comment against drugs is yet another argument based on the fallacy of reification (ascribing animate qualities to inanimate objects). Drugs don't damage society; it's the people who use drugs that have the potential to cause problems in a society, just as it's not guns that kill people, but the people who use guns immorally. Drugs can't do anything to a society until a person uses them, for recreation/medicine or for financial profit.

But even if you want to argue that drug usage harms society in total, why should federal and state governments be the first lines of defense to stop its detriment? There are plenty of churches and private organizations devoted to help with drug abuse and addiction. That's where the solution needs to take place, from a "bottom-up approach." The system of a free market is much better and, dare I say, more holy than the political whims from federal and state governments to take care of drug habits that could be disastrous to a community or society.

Ok. Your whole argument is a red herring. I'm not arguing to ban drugs, I'm arguing that people shouldn't use them.

[misterx]

Yes, unprescribed Ambien is very dangerous. The prescribed version,, is much safer.

It's flat out dangerous no matter what, but using it with a doctor's supervision is substantially safer. Some people just shouldn't be using it.

[misterx]

Not a victim.



Not victims.



You have got to be joking.

Next...



CAN be.



You sound JUS like a liberal because this is textbook liberal logic FAIL.

By your apparent reasoning, ANY human action is invalid because it effects others. If I'm at a party and fart, someone MIGHT leave for the balcony and then they MIGHT fall off, 50 stories to their deaths. Husband is widowed. Children are down a mom, who was the sole bread winner and whose parents commit suicide due to grief. Kids, all $#@!ed up because of my fart, take to rape and robbery, for which I must answer.

Therefore, I should be forbidden from farting at parties.

This line of hopelessly failed reasoning, taken to its absurd conclusion would mandate all humans be eliminated because everything they do has a POTENTIAL effect on other humans. First order preposterousness up one side, down the other, and all around.

FAIL.

PS: it is clear you are not an engineer, seeing as you are not familiar with the phenomenon of DAMPING. I will not explain it to you, but there is an analog in human activity and it speaks directly and with great force to the failed notions you have attempted to disseminate here. I seriously suggest you learn about it and ponder how it applies in the ways I have stated. It will improve your thinking greatly on matters such as this.

PPS: your reasoning fails to take into account the responsibilities of others for their choices, focusing only on those of the subject at hand. You asymmetrically assign responsibility for personal action.

Über-, mega-, hyper-, ULTRA-FAIL.

All your rambling might have been worth typing if I was arguing that drugs should be banned. I said nothing of the sort.

[Weston White]

Cholesterol is not a victimless crime!
Staph infections are not victimless crimes!

He is confusing drug use with (intentional/unintentional) drug overdose resulting in death or serious impairment or debilitation.

[Theocrat]

Ok. Your whole argument is a red herring. I'm not arguing to ban drugs, I'm arguing that people shouldn't use them.

Explain to me, again, how drugs are extremely damaging to society.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Ok. Your whole argument is a red herring. I'm not arguing to ban drugs, I'm arguing that people shouldn't use them.

Is coffee a drug ? Is sugar a drug ? A lot of things can influence your mental state as well as other things in your daily life.. What's the difference ? Moderation and common sense perhaps ?

[Weston White]

Is coffee a drug ? Is sugar a drug ? A lot of things can influence your mental state as well as other things in your daily life.. What's the difference ? Moderation and common sense perhaps ?

Certainly, the "Twinkie defense" has been forever cream-filed into American jurisprudence.

[osan]

All your rambling might have been worth typing if I was arguing that drugs should be banned. I said nothing of the sort.

I referred nowhere to drugs, but to the inadequacies of your argumentation. This is all you could come up with in response, so I will take that as acknowledgment of my points. I will add that your response smacks in tone of having taken my response to your other post personally, which I assure you that it was not offered in that vein. Any butthurt on your part is on you. Your logic is fatally flawed and I showed the manners in which it is so. Take from that what you will - the opportunity to make corrections on your thinking, or offense. Choice is always yours.

[Working Poor]

Drugs are not a victimless crime
Especially since the government is involved.

[MelissaWV]

Explain to me, again, how drugs are extremely damaging to society.

I am in agreement with him that drug ABUSE is extremely damaging well beyond the person abusing the drugs (or alcohol). I'm also in agreement that the only effective way to mitigate those effects is to have the ability to be honest and open about what is socially acceptable. If we took all the criminal implications away, for instance, how many people would shun someone for smoking pot? How about cooking up a batch of meth next door and wandering around under its effects in your neighborhood? How bad would it be to get tipsy, versus falling down, vomit-in-your-front-yard drunk? What about "mean drunks" that become abusive and loud and disturb the peaceful enjoyment of your home? All of this ties back to their behavior, which is definitely influenced by what is being consumed. It should be on voluntary organizations to provide assistance to those that can be rehabilitated... and want to be.

What government interference does is try to level that playing field artificially. Pot is terrible. Selling pot revokes your freedom. The same drugs you can be arrested for taking one day, become allowable as long as you get an approved person's permission slip and purchase them at a Government-approved shop.

But getting back to the damage. Anything that wrecks a family tends to echo through generations and everyone the family interacts with. People become more abusive, or they stop paying the bills. There's that charming meth lab we discussed, which definitely causes problems when it pollutes the area it's in or explodes. Maybe it leads to divorce, maybe it causes a few car wrecks, maybe it removes one of the great minds from society when they are too strung out to follow their own ideas, or because they're too busy taking care of someone abusing drugs. The physical implications of drug abuse by a family member are obvious and can also cost society in insurance costs.

I realize none of that states the drugs themselves are bad, but the abuse certainly is, and that's what misterx was getting at.

[tod evans]

I realize none of that states the drugs themselves are bad, but the abuse certainly is, and that's what misterx was getting at.

Speaking as a man who has consumed large quantities of lots of different drugs over the course of several decades.......It's my opinion that both drug use and drug abuse wouldn't be the issues they are if government wasn't involved.

This includes both the legal and illegal markets, their customers and the purveyors...

All of the problems society attributes to 'drugs' can realistically be traced to government instead.

Even the late 1800's didn't have the issues or stigma that government intervention has brought over the last decades....

Society as a whole has been hurt by their actions, only government employees have benefited.

[Brian4Liberty]

"drug criminals"


Is this not an oxymoron?

OTOH, Levin is just a moron.

What you usually discover during these kind of conversations is that they will eventually admit that "drug crimes" is simply the easiest way for them to convict people they believe have committed other, more serious crimes. Thus, they didn't want to release people convicted of drug crimes, as the whole thing was prosecutorial deception from the start. Like convicting Al Capone for income tax evasion.

[MelissaWV]

Speaking as a man who has consumed large quantities of lots of different drugs over the course of several decades.......It's my opinion that both drug use and drug abuse wouldn't be the issues they are if government wasn't involved.

This includes both the legal and illegal markets, their customers and the purveyors...

All of the problems society attributes to 'drugs' can realistically be traced to government instead.

Even the late 1800's didn't have the issues or stigma that government intervention has brought over the last decades....

Society as a whole has been hurt by their actions, only government employees have benefited.

I disagree with the statement
All of the problems society attributes to 'drugs' can realistically be traced to government instead. but I should also be clear I am speaking of any substance abuse, including ones that are currently legal. There are many situations where not having entire use of your conscious faculties, having reduced reaction times, being easily distracted, or having diminished inhibitions could lead to tragic results, independent of the fact that government would lock you up even if you weren't exhibiting any dangerous behavior or causing a demonstrably hazardous situation, all based on the outcome of a test or hunch.

[MelissaWV]

"drug criminals"



What you usually discover during these kind of conversations is that they will eventually admit that "drug crimes" is simply the easiest way for them to convict people they believe have committed other, more serious crimes. Thus, they didn't want to release people convicted of drug crimes, as the whole thing was prosecutorial deception from the start. Like convicting Al Capone for income tax evasion.

Correct, though that's hardly comforting. It also means that if you're suspected of a really awful crime, your lesser offense might be fast-tracked and certain implications might be made in that case to up the sentence, even if there's never enough evidence to convict you of the worse crime.

[pcosmar]

I'm arguing that people shouldn't use them.

Why?

The strain of Cannabis I have been using for the last year is better than aspirin for my Chronic Back Pain,, and has been keeping my Depression in check, and my mood generally civil.

And I am only one of millions of such testimonials.

[heavenlyboy34]

Explain to me, again, how drugs are extremely damaging to society.

It seems misterx is to drugs what fire11 is to pr0n. LOL :D

[Brian4Liberty]

Correct, though that's hardly comforting. It also means that if you're suspected of a really awful crime, your lesser offense might be fast-tracked and certain implications might be made in that case to up the sentence, even if there's never enough evidence to convict you of the worse crime.

Yes, quite the opposite of comforting. It's the loss of integrity in the system that leads to essentially the situation we have today. Is it three felonies a day? Five? Bottom line is that they can charge and convict anyone they want to go after. Everyone is guilty, they just fish for a charge that can be applied. It makes a system ripe for abuse, corruption and vendettas. Obama's IRS targeting of "Tea Party" groups is but one example. Drug law may be the most abused category of law when it comes to selective enforcement.

[misterx]

Explain to me, again, how drugs are extremely damaging to society.

I'm not getting into a stupid argument about semantics. If you want to use drugs then by all means, go ahead. I will try to be the best I can be, which means keeping away from drugs, alcohol, and sugar.

[misterx]

Why?

The strain of Cannabis I have been using for the last year is better than aspirin for my Chronic Back Pain,, and has been keeping my Depression in check, and my mood generally civil.

And I am only one of millions of such testimonials.

Lol A little exercise would be better for your back. I hurt my back a month ago. The doctor said stay in bed for 2 months. I pushed myself as hard as I could, and in three days I was walking around again, in a week I was completely recovered. You don't need drugs to help you through life unless you are weak. It might make you feel better, but what else is it doing you?

[osan]

What you usually discover during these kind of conversations is that they will eventually admit that "drug crimes" is simply the easiest way for them to convict people they believe have committed other, more serious crimes. Thus, they didn't want to release people convicted of drug crimes, as the whole thing was prosecutorial deception from the start. Like convicting Al Capone for income tax evasion.

I believe that all day long. Have we not seen it even admitted from time to time? Theye cannot get it straight up because the criminals are smarter, so they resort to chicanery that starts out as a once in a blue moon thing only to become SOP after a while.

[MelissaWV]

Lol A little exercise would be better for your back. I hurt my back a month ago. The doctor said stay in bed for 2 months. I pushed myself as hard as I could, and in three days I was walking around again, in a week I was completely recovered. You don't need drugs to help you through life unless you are weak. It might make you feel better, but what else is it doing you?

k never mind. I guess I misread your earlier posts.

Believe it or not, there are things exercise doesn't cure. Your anecdote about hurting your back doesn't mean jack when it comes to chronic pain, deformities, disease, and structural infirmities. Depending on how you "hurt your back" by the way, pushing yourself as hard as you could right away could have some awful side effects many years down the line.

Hope you never get anything serious that might actually require a chemical adjustment (natural or otherwise). I also hope that you make a distinction between drug use and abuse, otherwise you're just being ridiculous.

[MelissaWV]

oh and lol at suggesting pcosmar is some kind of couch potato... that may be the funniest thing I've heard all day

[H. E. Panqui]

misterx asserts: Drugs don't fall into that category, although they are extremely damaging to society. I'm inclined to let people destroy their own lives though if that's what they want. It's a really tough issue.

:o

...what's even more 'damaging to society' is the jailing, harassing, ostracizing, taxation, etc., ?your and levin's stinking stooooooooooooooopid republicrat drug prohibition has unleashed...

...i believe you'll find that ?your rotten, CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL pot prohibition (starting in ?1937 at the fed. level) has been attended by a HUGE increase in pot use...

...so ?your gd republicrat fools enacted fed. pot laws to [supposedly] curb pot use...at a time when hardly anyone had even heard of pot....now, after some 80 years of ?your stinking prohibition it's hard to find a republicrat who hasn't been photographed sucking on a bong at college!!...

...and despite this horrible record, ?you republicrats are still torn about this really 'tough issue'... :rolleyes:

...gd. republicrat. fools. :mad:

[misterx]

k never mind. I guess I misread your earlier posts.

Believe it or not, there are things exercise doesn't cure. Your anecdote about hurting your back doesn't mean jack when it comes to chronic pain, deformities, disease, and structural infirmities. Depending on how you "hurt your back" by the way, pushing yourself as hard as you could right away could have some awful side effects many years down the line.

Hope you never get anything serious that might actually require a chemical adjustment (natural or otherwise). I also hope that you make a distinction between drug use and abuse, otherwise you're just being ridiculous.

99% of these people just want to get high. Don't be fooled by the, "oh it's for my back" excuses. If it's really all about his back pain, he could get marijuana without thc. I bet he won't do that.

[misterx]

misterx asserts: Drugs don't fall into that category, although they are extremely damaging to society. I'm inclined to let people destroy their own lives though if that's what they want. It's a really tough issue.

:o

...what's even more 'damaging to society' is the jailing, harassing, ostracizing, taxation, etc., ?your and levin's stinking stooooooooooooooopid republicrat drug prohibition has unleashed...

...i believe you'll find that ?your rotten, CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL pot prohibition (starting in ?1937 at the fed. level) has been attended by a HUGE increase in pot use...

...so ?your gd republicrat fools enacted fed. pot laws to [supposedly] curb pot use...at a time when hardly anyone had even heard of pot....now, after some 80 years of ?your stinking prohibition it's hard to find a republicrat who hasn't been photographed sucking on a bong at college!!...

...and despite this horrible record, ?you republicrats are still torn about this really 'tough issue'... :rolleyes:

...gd. republicrat. fools. :mad:

Again, I never said it should be regulated by the state. You people are seriously obtuse.

[H. E. Panqui]

:rolleyes:

...sorry, misterx, but anyone who thinks this is 'a really tough issue' :rolleyes: is morbidly obtuse...;)

[misterx]

:rolleyes:

...sorry, misterx, but anyone who thinks this is 'a really tough issue' :rolleyes: is morbidly obtuse...;)

And anyone who thinks it's not has his head in the sand. If you had seen the things I've seen, you wouldn't be so cavalier about it. Have you ever been out of your mom's basement?

[MelissaWV]

99% of these people just want to get high. Don't be fooled by the, "oh it's for my back" excuses. If it's really all about his back pain, he could get marijuana without thc. I bet he won't do that.

And some people drink for the buzz. Until it becomes destructive, I don't see that it's anyone else's business. Even then, it's very SLIGHTLY the business of the people directly affected by it.

You can look down your nose at people who medicate themselves, which is one of those opinions that doesn't survive a lifetime of problems not solved by walking it off.

The question isn't why pcosmar wouldn't take marijuana without THC. The question is why you feel so smug and superior about this. You gamble with your health quite frequently, whether you admit to it or not. You do things for the joy of doing them, or for the hope that you enjoy them. You weigh the risks and decide what you'll do and how you'll do it.

This is why I pointed out abuse versus use. If I use something once a year or so to combat cold/flu symptoms, that's different than guzzling Tussin or cooking up something worse with it. The reason it's worse isn't some inherent aspect of the substance, but in the increasing likelihood that I'm going to damage those around me and possibly beyond.

[MelissaWV]

And anyone who thinks it's not has his head in the sand. If you had seen the things I've seen, you wouldn't be so cavalier about it. Have you ever been out of your mom's basement?

That's fabulously inspired and original. How do you come up with it?

"Mom's basement." I'm going to memorize that. Hell, I'd better write it down: "Assert that those who disagree with me are inexperienced and life in their mother's basement." I've never heard it before, and I want to ensure my correct use of this pithy comeback.

Do you have an insult for when the person is from a geographic location that precludes basements? That's kind of a stumper for me.

[misterx]

And some people drink for the buzz. Until it becomes destructive, I don't see that it's anyone else's business. Even then, it's very SLIGHTLY the business of the people directly affected by it.

You can look down your nose at people who medicate themselves, which is one of those opinions that doesn't survive a lifetime of problems not solved by walking it off.

The question isn't why pcosmar wouldn't take marijuana without THC. The question is why you feel so smug and superior about this. You gamble with your health quite frequently, whether you admit to it or not. You do things for the joy of doing them, or for the hope that you enjoy them. You weigh the risks and decide what you'll do and how you'll do it.

This is why I pointed out abuse versus use. If I use something once a year or so to combat cold/flu symptoms, that's different than guzzling Tussin or cooking up something worse with it. The reason it's worse isn't some inherent aspect of the substance, but in the increasing likelihood that I'm going to damage those around me and possibly beyond.

Like I've said half a dozen times in this thread already, if he wants to do it he can go ahead. People need to be educated about the dangers of drugs, alcohol, high fat diets, or whatever else can harm them. If they still insist on doing it then that's their right, but they shouldn't expect any help from me when it ends badly. If my tax dollars weren't going to support them after they destroy their lives, then frankly I wouldn't give a damn what they do, it would all sort itself out naturally.

Edit: And quite frankly, you have no right to tell me who I can and can't look down my nose at. If people want to look down on me for what I say or do, like some in this thread do, then so be it. I don't care because I'm secure in my beliefs. If it bothers them that I look down on them for doing drugs then maybe they aren't so secure in their belief that it's harmless.

[misterx]

That's fabulously inspired and original. How do you come up with it?

"Mom's basement." I'm going to memorize that. Hell, I'd better write it down: "Assert that those who disagree with me are inexperienced and life in their mother's basement." I've never heard it before, and I want to ensure my correct use of this pithy comeback.

Do you have an insult for when the person is from a geographic location that precludes basements? That's kind of a stumper for me.

It fits. I've found that most people who think that way have lived very sheltered lives, even if he doesn't still live with his parents, he's likely never been exposed to the darker side of society.

[MelissaWV]

It fits. I've found that most people who think that way have lived very sheltered lives, even if he doesn't still live with his parents, he's likely never been exposed to the darker side of society.

I find that most people that have to fling the "basement" label lack creativity, and are often projecting onto others something they're a bit ashamed of.

The characterization of anyone that's ever taken drugs (legal or otherwise) as some kind of awful creature destined to spiral downward and die of their own idiocy speaks much more of yourself than anyone else in this thread.

[misterx]

I find that most people that have to fling the "basement" label lack creativity, and are often projecting onto others something they're a bit ashamed of.

The characterization of anyone that's ever taken drugs (legal or otherwise) as some kind of awful creature destined to spiral downward and die of their own idiocy speaks much more of yourself than anyone else in this thread.

I won't lose any sleep over your feelings about me.;)

[MelissaWV]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/c15a66891bec1b1e842e09d38217a4af/tumblr_mtnvliMIfH1rtv0n2o1_400.gif

[H. E. Panqui]

If you had seen the things I've seen, you wouldn't be so cavalier about it.

:rolleyes:

...i've seen a lot of people whose lives have been ruined/partially ruined as a result of ?your gd fool republicrat drug 'laws'...

...?your miserable republicrat fools have taken some [maybe] poor choices made by individuals and turned it into a murderous drug war police/prison state...driving up the price of 'drugs' and therefore the real 'crime' associated with drug addiction/abuse..get real...

...you seem pretty 'cavalier' about that... :o

..(prohibitionist peckerheads: see 'forbidden fruit complex')

[misterx]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/c15a66891bec1b1e842e09d38217a4af/tumblr_mtnvliMIfH1rtv0n2o1_400.gif

How much you got? I'll leave this forum forever for ten thousand US dollars.:p

[misterx]

If you had seen the things I've seen, you wouldn't be so cavalier about it.

:rolleyes:

...i've seen a lot of people whose lives have been ruined/partially ruined as a result of ?your gd fool republicrat drug 'laws'...

...?your miserable republicrat fools have taken some [maybe] poor choices made by individuals and turned it into a murderous drug war police/prison state...driving up the price of 'drugs' and therefore the real 'crime' associated with drug use..get real...

...you seem pretty 'cavalier' about that... :o

..(prohibitionist peckerheads: see 'forbidden fruit complex')

Again, Mr. Obtuse can't get it through his thick skull that I'm not in favor of prohibition, I'm in favor of education. Let me be more explicit, I think drug abuse is a mental health issue, not a criminal one.

[presence]

Getting prescribed drugs from a licensed doctor is an act of coercive violence by the state for both the patient and the doctor.

[H. E. Panqui]

mistermorbidly obtuse asserts: Like I've said half a dozen times in this thread already, if he wants to do it he can go ahead. People need to be educated about the dangers of drugs, alcohol, high fat diets, or whatever else can harm them.

:eek:

...please remove cranium from sphincter...people who 'want to' can 'go ahead' and grow/sell/use/etc. pot and other 'illegal drugs' AND risk severe fines, jail, etc..wake up...your statement is asinine...people who 'want to' can 'go ahead' and steal, beat people up, rape them, etc...

...i take it critical thinking is not your forte...maybe some alex jones' 'brain force' pills would placate you...;)

...btw, republicrats speak of victimless 'crimes'... but decent, enlightened folks understand a true 'crime' happens when someone violates someone else's rights...and i'm sorry, but ?you and that gd fool mark levin don't have a right to dictate 'drug prohibitions/laws' which deny individuals their obvious rights to self medication, plant cultivation, etc..in fact, ?your prohibitionists are truly criminals..as they harm people for merely exercising their obvious 'god-given' rights...wtfu...

...?your republicrat prohibitionist dinks have done tremendous harm...it seems to me that, at a minimum, it's time to stop apologizing for these gd fools...

[pcosmar]

Lol A little exercise would be better for your back. I hurt my back a month ago. The doctor said stay in bed for 2 months. I pushed myself as hard as I could, and in three days I was walking around again, in a week I was completely recovered. You don't need drugs to help you through life unless you are weak. It might make you feel better, but what else is it doing you?

My back was damaged when an out of control Cop put his knee into it.

It is physical damage. I spent the next 9 years heating a Four Bedroom Farmhouse with wood (aprox 20 full cords). and I weigh less than I50 lbs.

I am pretty sure Oxycot is prescribed for less than I deal with. Cannabis is far less debilitating..In fact it enhances my abilities.

as to what else it is doing.. well
The full range of beneficial effects is unknown,, as far as negative effects..NONE KNOWN.

Except,,I would not mind the price coming down more.. but as the market grows it should.

as it is,, it is affordable,,,on the very little I make (to avoid taxes).

[pcosmar]

I'm in favor of education.

And in need.

[tod evans]

It fits. I've found that most people who think that way have lived very sheltered lives, even if he doesn't still live with his parents, he's likely never been exposed to the darker side of society.

If you're talking about Pete he's old enough to be your father and has certainly seen and done things that would terrify someone who holds your expressed beliefs and attitudes.

[pcosmar]

99% of these people just want to get high. Don't be fooled by the, "oh it's for my back" excuses. If it's really all about his back pain, he could get marijuana without thc. I bet he won't do that.

Bull $hit

And yes there are many strains,,and each with slightly differing characteristics. Pain relief is only one.
And they do produce several low THC/ High CBD strains. Those are particularly helpful to folks with epilepsy and/or nerve damage.

It is beneficial to many ailments,

The euphoric effect,, is common to all,, is not debilitating. The beneficial effects are still being Relearned.

[pcosmar]

If you're talking about Pete he's old enough to be your father and has certainly seen and done things that would terrify someone who holds your expressed beliefs and attitudes.

A sheltered life?

not exactly..

LOL

Funny to see folks so convinced of their own error.

[RJB]

If you're talking about Pete he's old enough to be your father and has certainly seen and done things that would terrify someone who holds your expressed beliefs and attitudes.

LOL. No kidding. Pete holds my respect in life experience and outlook even when we disagree.

[Origanalist]

Lol A little exercise would be better for your back. I hurt my back a month ago. The doctor said stay in bed for 2 months. I pushed myself as hard as I could, and in three days I was walking around again, in a week I was completely recovered. You don't need drugs to help you through life unless you are weak. It might make you feel better, but what else is it doing you?

And you talk about others being sheltered, good grief. It really does happen that you can't always just tough it out, there are methods to greatly decrease your back pain but using your own limited experience as an example of someone being weak because they have a more severe injury is asinine at best.

[pcosmar]

If it bothers them that I look down on them for doing drugs then maybe they aren't so secure in their belief that it's harmless.

It does not bother me.. nor my wife (71 yrs),, my employer,, and in this state,, it does not bother the state.

Ignorance masquerading as information bothers me some.

[osan]

And anyone who thinks it's not has his head in the sand. If you had seen the things I've seen, you wouldn't be so cavalier about it. Have you ever been out of your mom's basement?

You have made some valid points. The rest have been pretty weak, IMO. Perhaps par for the course, but then you trotted out this clapped out old girl that reminds me of the politician who attempts to justify his stooge-like position on some issue by rolling out the similarly tired, "you don't know what I know..."

I've seen plenty in my life - lives destroyed, people killed before my very own eye balls. I suspect plenty of us here have seen more than you might imagine.

Do as you please, of course, but I would suggest keeping it real. YMMV.

[osan]

Lol A little exercise would be better for your back. I hurt my back a month ago. The doctor said stay in bed for 2 months. I pushed myself as hard as I could, and in three days I was walking around again, in a week I was completely recovered. You don't need drugs to help you through life unless you are weak. It might make you feel better, but what else is it doing you?

Holy crap... you cannot be serious. Your one-size-fits-all (OSFA) approach is a potentially disastrous way of dealing with injuries. Exercise and determination may have worked for YOU... this time. If you were ever to be seriously injured, I suspect you would come to a new and very different understanding. This is especially true as you age. I'm not as ancient as Pete, but at 58 things are very different from when I was 28. I will grant that I am in pretty good shape - better than many half my age, largely due to the large volumes of back-breaking physical labor with which I now occupy myself, but I am not what once I was. My parts hurt, getting out of bed isn't as easy - nor is getting up off the floor. If I do any jujutsu these days, my ukemi is relatively questionable, and I have to be more careful when acting as uke because I can FEEL that I am more brittle than I used to be. It would be a lot easier to inflict lifelong maiming injuries on me now than when I was much younger.

OSFA is generally not a very good approach to life. Everyone is different in some way and capacity. That should be respected and it seems to me that you do not.

[Origanalist]

Holy crap... you cannot be serious. Your one-size-fits-all (OSFA) approach is a potentially disastrous way of dealing with injuries. Exercise and determination may have worked for YOU... this time. If you were ever to be seriously injured, I suspect you would come to a new and very different understanding. This is especially true as you age. I'm not as ancient as Pete, but at 58 things are very different from when I was 28. I will grant that I am in pretty good shape - better than many half my age, largely due to the large volumes of back-breaking physical labor with which I now occupy myself, but I am not what once I was. My parts hurt, getting out of bed isn't as easy - nor is getting up off the floor. If I do any jujutsu these days, my ukemi is relatively questionable, and I have to be more careful when acting as uke because I can FEEL that I am more brittle than I used to be. It would be a lot easier to inflict lifelong maiming injuries on me now than when I was much younger.

OSFA is generally not a very good approach to life. Everyone is different in some way and capacity. That should be respected and it seems to me that you do not.

We're the same age and it sounds like we are aging similarly. I still do a fairly significant amount of physical labor also, I see the results of those who don't and want no part of it. Use it or lose it as they say.

[lilymc]

Again, I never said it should be regulated by the state. You people are seriously obtuse.

I noticed that too. I think some people need to lay off the wacky weed.

[BV2]

Thank you for doing your part to ostracize these people so they can't be productive members of society.

They could certainly use your help in Colorado. People are getting way too comfortable with drug use over there. First marijuana, then what? LSD? Shrooms? Imagine the horror if people got addicted to these dangerous substances, living forever in a bad trip they can't escape from because these substances are so incredibly addictive.

Thank you so much for helping to lay judgment on these people, but we still have so much more work to do!

Bravo, sir.

[misterx]

mistermorbidly obtuse asserts: Like I've said half a dozen times in this thread already, if he wants to do it he can go ahead. People need to be educated about the dangers of drugs, alcohol, high fat diets, or whatever else can harm them.

:eek:

...please remove cranium from sphincter...people who 'want to' can 'go ahead' and grow/sell/use/etc. pot and other 'illegal drugs' AND risk severe fines, jail, etc..wake up...your statement is asinine...people who 'want to' can 'go ahead' and steal, beat people up, rape them, etc...

...i take it critical thinking is not your forte...maybe some alex jones' 'brain force' pills would placate you...;)

...btw, republicrats speak of victimless 'crimes'... but decent, enlightened folks understand a true 'crime' happens when someone violates someone else's rights...and i'm sorry, but ?you and that gd fool mark levin don't have a right to dictate 'drug prohibitions/laws' which deny individuals their obvious rights to self medication, plant cultivation, etc..in fact, ?your prohibitionists are truly criminals..as they harm people for merely exercising their obvious 'god-given' rights...wtfu...

...?your republicrat prohibitionist dinks have done tremendous harm...it seems to me that, at a minimum, it's time to stop apologizing for these gd fools...

Are you retarded or what? I said DRUGS SHOULD BE LEGAL What part of that don't you understand? Obviously you've already fried your brain.

[misterx]

And you talk about others being sheltered, good grief. It really does happen that you can't always just tough it out, there are methods to greatly decrease your back pain but using your own limited experience as an example of someone being weak because they have a more severe injury is asinine at best.

My point is, you don't need weed to deal with back pain. I know a lot of people who have chronic back pain from all sorts of things including arthiritis and spinal fractures. They all get by just fine without narcotics. PCO doesn't smoke to alleviate his back pain, he does it to get high. There are other drugs that work better for alleviating back pain. You don't want to hear that though because it's all about justifying your own drug habits. That's the one thing I really hate about pot smokers. You can never just be real enough to say you want to get messed up. At least people who drink don't pretend it's for their glaucoma.

[misterx]

If you're talking about Pete he's old enough to be your father and has certainly seen and done things that would terrify someone who holds your expressed beliefs and attitudes.

How ironic. You people attack me for making assumptions about his life experiences based on his posts, and then you do the very same thing to me. Perhaps I was wrong, maybe he just has dementia.

[John F Kennedy III]

Are you retarded or what? I said DRUGS SHOULD BE LEGAL What part of that don't you understand? Obviously you've already fried your brain.

How have you devolved into insulting so quickly? I mean, it's funny seeing you call someone like Pcosmar sheltered. But to get anywhere in debates, you have to be open to being wrong and you can't just fling insults in place of arguments.

[John F Kennedy III]

My point is, you don't need weed to deal with back pain. I know a lot of people who have chronic back pain from all sorts of things including arthiritis and spinal fractures. They all get by just fine without narcotics. PCO doesn't smoke to alleviate his back pain, he does it to get high. There are other drugs that work better for alleviating back pain. You don't want to hear that though because it's all about justifying your own drug habits. That's the one thing I really hate about pot smokers. You can never just be real enough to say you want to get messed up. At least people who drink don't pretend it's for their glaucoma.

There you go pretending to be able to read other people's minds.

[tod evans]

My point is, you don't need weed to deal with back pain. I know a lot of people who have chronic back pain from all sorts of things including arthiritis and spinal fractures. They all get by just fine without narcotics. PCO doesn't smoke to alleviate his back pain, he does it to get high. There are other drugs that work better for alleviating back pain. You don't want to hear that though because it's all about justifying your own drug habits. That's the one thing I really hate about pot smokers. You can never just be real enough to say you want to get messed up. At least people who drink don't pretend it's for their glaucoma.

Here you go speaking for someone else......

Why would you want to do that?

More importantly why do you think it's your place to pass judgement on another? Especially someone your senior who should be approached with respect.

I stopped knowing everything long before I hit 30 and started paying more attention to the wisdom of my elders, judging by your posts you're a bit older than 30, are you one of those people who fails to recognize their own ignorance as they age?

[Suzanimal]

My point is, you don't need weed to deal with back pain. I know a lot of people who have chronic back pain from all sorts of things including arthiritis and spinal fractures. They all get by just fine without narcotics. PCO doesn't smoke to alleviate his back pain, he does it to get high. There are other drugs that work better for alleviating back pain. You don't want to hear that though because it's all about justifying your own drug habits. That's the one thing I really hate about pot smokers. You can never just be real enough to say you want to get messed up. At least people who drink don't pretend it's for their glaucoma.

Possibly (really you don't know that because everyone responds differently to different drugs), and those narcotics, not only come with some rather nasty side effects, they're also a pain in ass to get. My mom has back pain. I bought her some weed because the other drugs knock her out completely. She doesn't want to sleep her life away. The weed didn't work out for her but to say people only use it medicinally to get wasted is complete bs. My mom was 82 when she smoked her first joint and had never done anything stronger than a glass of wine before her back got screwy - she drinks that for her glaucoma.;)

[H. E. Panqui]

mistermorbidlyobtuse republicrats: "That's the one thing I really hate about pot smokers. You can never just be real enough to say you want to get messed up. At least people who drink don't pretend it's for their glaucoma."

:rolleyes:

(...hint for republicrat dummies: i believe you'll find that many people are scared to 'get real' because of the very real and possibly severe consequences for doing so...you see, for one example, 'getting real' and admitting you enjoy imbibing in your very own home brew beer is not treated the same in law, etc., as 'getting real' and publicly admitting you enjoy blowing a joint, eating a brownie, etc., fresh from your very own lush, front-yard ganja garden...

...and i bet you won't admit it, but i'd bet a bundle that if there was an honest political attempt to 'legalize pot' ('legalize' is a bad term to use) you, misterx, would be one of the 'no' votes...i heartily admit to being a 'yes' vote..

...and btw, man oh man, wouldn't i like to publicly debate any goddamned fool republicrat drug prohibition supporter/apologist... :D...but they seem to shun honest public debate...and anyone with a lick of sense knows why...

[Slave Mentality]

99% of these people just want to get high. Don't be fooled by the, "oh it's for my back" excuses. If it's really all about his back pain, he could get marijuana without thc. I bet he won't do that.

100% of these people that feel their values should be applied to anyone else are statist idiots. Don't be fooled by the "oh I care about you" bullshit. If it's really about his concern, he would shut the hell up and live his own life and let me live mine. I bet he can't do that.

Either you believe in personal choice, or don't.

[Origanalist]

My point is, you don't need weed to deal with back pain. I know a lot of people who have chronic back pain from all sorts of things including arthiritis and spinal fractures. They all get by just fine without narcotics. PCO doesn't smoke to alleviate his back pain, he does it to get high. There are other drugs that work better for alleviating back pain. You don't want to hear that though because it's all about justifying your own drug habits. That's the one thing I really hate about pot smokers. You can never just be real enough to say you want to get messed up. At least people who drink don't pretend it's for their glaucoma.

You don't NEED a Corvette to get to work, you can drive a Prius. Ridiculous argument.


PCO doesn't smoke to alleviate his back pain, he does it to get high. There are other drugs that work better for alleviating back pain. You don't want to hear that though because it's all about justifying your own drug habits

You're really good at being wrong. It could be that he does it for both, I don't believe Pete ever indicated his use was for medicinal purposes only. Even doctors prescribe different gubmint approved drugs to different people because they don't work the same for everyone and virtually all those get you high also so you're just insisting on being wrong again. You literally have no idea what works for another human being, and if you are referring to MY drug habits l prefer whisky, pot doesn't agree with me.

[JK/SEA]

i found out that MARIJUANA helps with my joint pain and other 'issues' i now have thanks to father time.

funny that i used to smoke it when i was younger to 'party' and have fun in bed.....now...i get both. Fun without pain...win win misterx..

[H. E. Panqui]

...one thing that really troubles me about 'anti-drug' crusaders like misterx and other republicrats is the way they heap scorn, ridicule, etc., on the real victims of this miserable gd fool 'drug war'...

...but not a stinking peep of scorn and ridicule from misterx and other republicrats about the twisted pigs who are truly the real criminals: ...the republicrat pig politicians, the twisted 'justice' :rolleyes: system pigs from cops to judges to jailers, and other republicrat pigs who routinely violate other peoples' obvious unalienable rights to self-medication, ingestion, plant cultivation, etc., in the conduct of this filthy, insane 'war on drugs'....

...twisted. goddamned. republicrat. fools. pigs.

[Schifference]

Does anyone think that impaired individuals are more likely to commit crime? Would a person commit a crime while impaired that they would not commit had they not been impaired?

[pcosmar]

I've seen plenty in my life - lives destroyed, people killed before my very own eye balls. I suspect plenty of us here have seen more than you might imagine.

Do as you please, of course, but I would suggest keeping it real. YMMV.

And this..^

I have engaged in stupidity,, and more than just once.
My "college" is known here. ;)

I have worn the blood of friends,, and enemies.

and watched folks kill themselves,, in their own ways.

Substances are less relevant than the reasons for their use. Which is the Real Issue.

[pcosmar]

, and if you are referring to MY drug habits l prefer whisky, pot doesn't agree with me.

LOL

My last run with whisky was no fun,,
http://pcosmar.blogspot.com/2006/08/things-have-not-gone-well.html

I had not had any before that since the Hurricane Andrew hurricane party. (in which I allegedly died)
recovery times got to be too much,, stuck with beer.

[Origanalist]

LOL

My last run with whisky was no fun,,
http://pcosmar.blogspot.com/2006/08/things-have-not-gone-well.html

I had not had any before that since the Hurricane Andrew hurricane party. (in which I allegedly died)
recovery times got to be too much,, stuck with beer.

I like a good beer, but I like it better with a shot of good whiskey...:)

[MelissaWV]

Does anyone think that impaired individuals are more likely to commit crime? Would a person commit a crime while impaired that they would not commit had they not been impaired?

I will circle back to this, because it's the primary point Mark Levin seemed to be circling his way to, and something that deserves scrutiny.

Currently, people with a dependency are more likely to commit crimes if they are denied access to that on which they are dependent. This could be drugs, alcohol, or any number of things.

After decriminalization, I still think there is a higher chance of a drug ABUSER committing crime. Anyone who's seen someone knock-down drunk (or been that person, I guess) can attest that they are more likely to do some things while impaired, and very few of them are beneficial to society or the person who's drunk. Within that broad, vague category of drunken acts is a subset where the action is not so cute or harmless. This is the part where someone is too hammered to drive and runs over someone, or where they are too drunk to understand (or say) "no," or when assault sounds like a good idea, or showing up at an ex's and getting really upset that she's moved on... and directing that upset through your fists or a bat at the new guy... you get the idea. Things can go south. There are other drugs that really blur right from wrong, or twist reality in a pretty scary way, and all it takes is a bad trip and the borderline ability to still use a weapon to make things scary for everyone around you as well.

The number of drug-fueled crimes would still be super low --- and definitely lower than they are now --- but people with their emotions amplified, their strength upped, or their inhibitions removed are going to be more likely to do something regrettable than the same people in their fully sober state.

[Schifference]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MelissaWV again.

[Origanalist]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MelissaWV again.

Covered, it was a good post.

[pcosmar]

How ironic. You people attack me for making assumptions about his life experiences based on his posts, and then you do the very same thing to me. Perhaps I was wrong, maybe he just has dementia.

Oh come on,,

I can do demented,, but usually choose otherwise.

I did not attack you at all,, only your assumption that "people should not use" natural products for medical benefits..

and your veiled assumption that BIG Pharma Drugs are better.
And I disagree with that whole train of thought.

Marijuana is a Gift from God,, with health and economic benefits beyond measure.

The very fact that it has been prohibited must make a rational mind ask,, "Why?".
and the answer to that is darker than greed.

[tod evans]

Does anyone think that impaired individuals are more likely to commit crime? Would a person commit a crime while impaired that they would not commit had they not been impaired?

'Impaired' is of course subjective..

The guy or girl who has ingested a couple of Ludes isn't very likely to do much at all..

But it really does't matter what one is 'likely' to do if XYandZ all occur at a given time. Like Melissa said some poor bloke who's been dumped might or might not go off on the new dude or even his ex depending on any given number of things only one of which might possibly be something he imbibed in...And that substance might or might ot be illegal...

Pre-crime doesn't work or in the instance of break-ups they either wouldn't be permitted unless both people agreed or one person was lobotomized..Which isn't realistic either.

All drugs serve a purpose, making some illegal and controlling others really has no effect on crime other than some people being arrested for possession or distribution.

If all drugs were available all the time to anyone for any reason the 'likelyhood' of drugs being the cause for real crime would undoubtedly be diminished...One must weigh such things as crimes committed to obtain drugs or money now to actual crimes committed because of impairment in a fictional world.

I contend that people being genuinely good would commit less crime if they had the option of self medicating as they choose when they choose.

[pcosmar]

Does anyone think that impaired individuals are more likely to commit crime? Would a person commit a crime while impaired that they would not commit had they not been impaired?

I am of the opinion that people often use drugs to enable them to do what they are otherwise inhibited from.

and the blame it on the substance of choice.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL9O0B0gzZE

[tod evans]

I am of the opinion that people often use drugs to enable them to do what they are otherwise inhibited from.

and the blame it on the substance of choice.

In today's legal and moral climate this is absolutely true..

The ol' "The Devil Made Me Do It" defense..

Which only empowers government and her advocates, the real devils...

[lilymc]

Marijuana is a Gift from God,, with health and economic benefits beyond measure.

I've heard that a lot, from pot smokers, but I think if one is going to bring up God, they need to be careful not to mislead anyone.

Intoxication (not just getting drunk, but getting high from any mind-altering drug) is not only a sin, but it's actually one of the biggest and most effective spiritual traps out there. I have zero doubt about that, I've seen it with my own eyes, many, many times.

Marijuana may be a blessing for people who really need it, for pain or other medical reasons, but not for recreational use... the scriptures are very clear that God wants us to be sober, clear-minded, and as Christians (this is not aimed at the nonbelievers here) different than everyone else, set apart, sanctified....not like we were in our old life, before we came to Christ.



For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.

1 Peter 4:3-5


I could post a ton more scriptures on how we are to be different than this world... sober, clean, set apart, spiritually mature - not relying on crutches like drugs, but relying on God.

I'm not saying that all this applies to you, but your statement "Marijuana is a Gift from God" could easily be misunderstood, so I just felt that clarification was needed.

[osan]

'Impaired' is of course subjective..

The guy or girl who has ingested a couple of Ludes isn't very likely to do much at all..

You sho' got dat right. 1977, my friends Tom and Roxanne throw a party at their place just off Hollywood Blvd. Al Stewart shows up with his manager. I arrived with my friend Kevin, already under some influence. Al's manager may have been gay... whatever, he took a shine to me and offered me a lude. OK, said I. Down the hatch. The only things I clearly recall of the remainder of that night was turning the light on in Roxanne's closet to find Al Stewart getting, erm... "busy" with the knock-out bombshell with whom he had arrived. I excused myself, turn off the light and exited. The only other part I recalled was the fabulously gorgeous young miss who said "you look like you need a kiss" and planted one on me before I was able to consent. I can still taste her and it still makes me happy.

Short of that, the night was pretty much a blur. Methaqualone is a hypnotic and I was very hypnotized that night.

Then there was the night my coworkers Spero and Jerry attempted to go roller skating on ludes...


But it really does't matter what one is 'likely' to do if XYandZ all occur at a given time. Like Melissa said some poor bloke who's been dumped might or might not go off on the new dude or even his ex depending on any given number of things only one of which might possibly be something he imbibed in...And that substance might or might ot be illegal...

Yes - once again the what-if method of hand-wringing is so often used to deny the rights of men. "We deny your right to keep and bear arms!" "Why?" "What if you shoot someone?"


Pre-crime doesn't work or in the instance of break-ups they either wouldn't be permitted unless both people agreed or one person was lobotomized..Which isn't realistic either.

When was the last time government gave a fart about being realistic or just? Their univeral response to any "why?" question is "because FUCK YOU".


All drugs serve a purpose, making some illegal and controlling others really has no effect on crime other than some people being arrested for possession or distribution.


I don't suppose you really meant that. It has a profound effect on crime: it jacks the rates and mean severity through the roof.


If all drugs were available all the time to anyone for any reason the 'likelyhood' of drugs being the cause for real crime would undoubtedly be diminished...One must weigh such things as crimes committed to obtain drugs or money now to actual crimes committed because of impairment in a fictional world.

I'd bet money I do not have that drug-related crime would be nearly eliminated.

[osan]

Does anyone think that impaired individuals are more likely to commit crime?

On the average, no. I'm inclined to think they would commit less, assuming the free availability of the poisons of their choosing. Of course, this also assumes appropriate treatment of criminals who commit their crimes while impaired. In some cases I would deem intoxication a possible aggravating factor. I would never deem being high as a crime in itself. An ATP in the cockpit of a 757, blitzed on orange barrels would likely have to answer for his poor judgment. How Danke gets away with it weekly is a mystery to me.

There would always be exceptions, of course. But consider the factors in favor of non-criminal behavior: you can get high all you like, using whatever substance you prefer, so long as you do not bring harm to others. If you harm others, your inebriation might serve to aggravate the charges made against you, thereby giving a judge reason to augment your sentence in the event you are convicted. There's your carrot and stick. Get high, behave yourself, and live to get high another day on the one hand. Get high, commit a crime, go to prison for an extended vacation with a whole host of large and very lonely men.

As stupid as the average man is today, I contend it is only so because he is allowed to get away with his idiocy. Put painful consequences in his path and most will tread with mindful care. The others? Nothing you could have done would have likely brought them around to sense and decency, and so off the prison with them.


Would a person commit a crime while impaired that they would not commit had they not been impaired?

Sometimes yes, other times no. Not sure what you are driving at here in terms of relevancy.

[Schifference]

Where is this free drug of choice coming from?

I would venture to say that functioning addicts that can financially support their habit are not likely to commit crime trying to acquire drugs. I would also think that low life ghetto addicts would steal from anyone including friends and family to get their fix.

I don't hear many good upbeat stories about the grandfather that was an alcoholic. Most times when people speak of an addict it is less than possitive.

If a family member allocates too much of the family income toward their drug of choice or any habit for that matter would that not be considered harm?

[tod evans]

Where is this free drug of choice coming from?

In the perfect fictitious world government would not be involved even in something like grandpaw's booze.

Gramps wouldn't be able to blow even a portion of his retirement on tax/regulation free booze (or dope) without literally killing himself so the only complaint that could be waged is the attitude or behavior he exhibited.

The hoodrats........If they actually bothered you $20.00 worth of pure Fentanyl would have any three of 'em in the coroners van and happy to be there...

[John F Kennedy III]

LOL

My last run with whisky was no fun,,
http://pcosmar.blogspot.com/2006/08/things-have-not-gone-well.html

I had not had any before that since the Hurricane Andrew hurricane party. (in which I allegedly died)
recovery times got to be too much,, stuck with beer.

If you don't flatline at least once, you're not having a good time.

[John F Kennedy III]

I've heard that a lot, from pot smokers, but I think if one is going to bring up God, they need to be careful not to mislead anyone.

Intoxication (not just getting drunk, but getting high from any mind-altering drug) is not only a sin, but it's actually one of the biggest and most effective spiritual traps out there. I have zero doubt about that, I've seen it with my own eyes, many, many times.

Marijuana may be a blessing for people who really need it, for pain or other medical reasons, but not for recreational use... the scriptures are very clear that God wants us to be sober, clear-minded, and as Christians (this is not aimed at the nonbelievers here) different than everyone else, set apart, sanctified....not like we were in our old life, before we came to Christ.



For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.

1 Peter 4:3-5


I could post a ton more scriptures on how we are to be different than this world... sober, clean, set apart, spiritually mature - not relying on crutches like drugs, but relying on God.

I'm not saying that all this applies to you, but your statement "Marijuana is a Gift from God" could easily be misunderstood, so I just felt that clarification was needed.

Your Bible reeks of marijuana:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w0bH6Z_OSp8

[heavenlyboy34]

If you don't flatline at least once, you're not having a good time.

:eek: I guess we have a different understanding of "good time", then... :P

[John F Kennedy III]

:eek: I guess we have a different understanding of "good time", then... :P

:D

[RJB]

To change my original statement a bit: The war on drugs is not a victimless crime.

[pcosmar]

I've heard that a lot, from pot smokers, but I think if one is going to bring up God, they need to be careful not to mislead anyone.

Intoxication (not just getting drunk, but getting high from any mind-altering drug) is not only a sin, but it's actually one of the biggest and most effective spiritual traps out there. I have zero doubt about that, I've seen it with my own eyes, many, many times.

Marijuana may be a blessing for people who really need it, for pain or other medical reasons, but not for recreational use... the scriptures are very clear that God wants us to be sober, clear-minded, and as Christians (this is not aimed at the nonbelievers here) different than everyone else, set apart, sanctified....not like we were in our old life, before we came to Christ.



For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.

1 Peter 4:3-5


I could post a ton more scriptures on how we are to be different than this world... sober, clean, set apart, spiritually mature - not relying on crutches like drugs, but relying on God.

I'm not saying that all this applies to you, but your statement "Marijuana is a Gift from God" could easily be misunderstood, so I just felt that clarification was needed.
And I appreciate that. But I stand by my statement.

And God said, Behold, I have given you every plant bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, which has seed in its fruit; to you it shall be for food.

It is a Gift from God.

it has (and only in recent history) been prohibited by men.

as far as your quoted scripture,, it would be more applicable to alcohol and narcotics than marijuana.

it is not and never should have been in a related category.

[pcosmar]

If you don't flatline at least once, you're not having a good time.

:D

I and everyone in Monroe County were declared dead at one point,, cut off by Hurricane damage.
It was three days before I could get word of my survival to someone. News said,,,, I's dead

[lilymc]

And I appreciate that. But I stand by my statement.


It is a Gift from God.

it has (and only in recent history) been prohibited by men.

as far as your quoted scripture,, it would be more applicable to alcohol and narcotics than marijuana.

it is not and never should have been in a related category.

You are putting marijuana in a special category all on its own. Like many pot users, you seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that it's not a drug. With all due respect, that is flat out denial. People who do that are just finding a way to justify their habit that they don't want to let go of. By simply waving off the word 'drug' in regard to marijuana, and instead romanticizing it... and even believing the lie that God supports the recreational use (getting stoned) of marijuana.

It's a mind-altering drug, whether the user wants to admit it or not. And the bible is abundantly clear that getting high, losing one's sobriety (and along with that, good judgment) is a sin. It's the principle or idea behind it that matters, and that same principle applies to marijuana or other mind-altering drugs.

In fact, drug use for getting high or for "spiritual" purposes is called sorcery or witchcraft in the bible. From Galatians 5:19-20, the word pharmakeia (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5331&t=KJV) (from which we get the word pharmacy) is called sorcery or witchcraft. Why, because that's how it was used by occultic religions (pagans). The ones we are not supposed to emulate, but be different from.



Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)


Genesis 1:29 is about food, mankind's original diet. It says "for food" at the end of that verse, it doesn't say anything about using to get high or escape reality.

Just because God created something doesn't automatically make it OK in any context whatsoever. There are many things I could name that God created, that have a proper context.

[John F Kennedy III]

You are putting marijuana in a special category all on its own. Like many pot users, you seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that it's not a drug. With all due respect, that is flat out denial. People who do that are just finding a way to justify their habit that they don't want to let go of. By simply waving off the word 'drug' in regard to marijuana, and instead romanticizing it... and even believing the lie that God supports the recreational use (getting stoned) of marijuana.

It's a mind-altering drug, whether the user wants to admit it or not. And the bible is abundantly clear that getting high, losing one's sobriety (and along with that, good judgment) is a sin. It's the principle or idea behind it that matters, and that same principle applies to marijuana or other mind-altering drugs.

In fact, drug use for getting high or for "spiritual" purposes is called sorcery or witchcraft in the bible. From Galatians 5:19-20, the word pharmakeia (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5331&t=KJV) (from which we get the word pharmacy) is called sorcery or witchcraft. Why, because that's how it was used by occultic religions (pagans). The ones we are not supposed to emulate, but be different from.



Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)


Genesis 1:29 is about food, mankind's original diet. It says "for food" at the end of that verse, it doesn't say anything about using to get high or escape reality.

Just because God created something doesn't automatically make it OK in any context whatsoever. There are many things I could name that God created, that have a proper context.

The Bible is abundantly full of marijuana. Some evidence of which I believe I already posted in this thread.

[John F Kennedy III]

Your Bible reeks of marijuana:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w0bH6Z_OSp8

It was even in reply to you, lilymc, yet you accuse pcosmar of being in denial.

[John F Kennedy III]

Where's Dannno? I'm sure he has plenty to say on the subject :D

[lilymc]

The Bible is abundantly full of marijuana. Some evidence of which I believe I already posted in this thread.

I actually watched it. At first it appeared to be just a pro-pot video from a non-Christian perspective. But as it went on, it became clear that it was an anti-Christian, blasphemous, almost laughable piece of garbage filled with layers upon layers of lies and total nonsense. Way too much to even begin to get into here and now, which is why I hadn't replied to you yet.

The guy narrating it openly states the Luciferian take on the Garden of Eden... which is upside-down, making God the bad guy, and the serpent (the devil) the good guy, who "frees" Adam and Eve and opens their eyes, by partaking in the tree in the garden (which he seems to think is... you guessed it, cannabis.) :p

I'm laughing, but I guess I shouldn't... because many people with 'itching ears' could be misled by deceptive stuff like that. When I have more time, I'll try to get back to it and get into more specifics.

[lilymc]

Btw, JFK... even some pot smokers in the comments section of that video dismissed it as bs. The top comment right now is: "I smoke weed, but this is a crock of sh*te"

[John F Kennedy III]

Btw, JFK... even some pot smokers in the comments section of that video dismissed it as bs. The top comment right now is: "I smoke weed, but this is a crock of sh*te"

That video certainly doesn't bring up all the marijuana references in the Bible. I'd be glad to hear what you object to specifically when you get the chance.

[H. E. Panqui]

...again, lilymc and misterx cast condemnation on marijuana users who violate nobody's rights and commit no real crime...but not a stinking peep about the mass of government pigs who ROUTINELY violate peoples' rights and commit real crimes against marijuana users...

...maybe lilymc and misterx are two of the hundreds of thousands of government drug war pigs who routinely violate other peoples' rights and get paid blood money to do it?.. :confused:

[lilymc]

...again, lilymc and misterx cast condemnation on marijuana users who violate nobody's rights and commit no real crime...but not a stinking peep about the mass of government pigs who ROUTINELY violate peoples' rights and commit real crimes against marijuana users...

...maybe lilymc and misterx are two of the hundreds of thousands of government drug war pigs who routinely violate other peoples' rights and get paid blood money to do it?.. :confused:

misterx was right about one thing. Your reading comprehension is horrible. I was discussing the Christian perspective of marijuana use, with a Christian (pcosmar). Which means I was not talking to anyone else. And I was not discussing the legal side of it, at all. Which misterx also stated to you, loud and clear, at least 5 times. Are you high right now, or what? :D You definitely seem to be paranoid and dazed and confused.

[Natural Citizen]

...maybe lilymc and misterx are two of the hundreds of thousands of government drug war pigs who routinely violate other peoples' rights and get paid blood money to do it?.. :confused:

Well, what gives you that idea?

[Natural Citizen]

I was discussing the Christian perspective...

I think it's the more valid perspective. The Individual's moral duty is created by God's Law. The Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law. There is a fundamental difference between Legal and Lawful in that regard. And certainly the difference between improper Man-to-Man/Government-to-Man relations and proper Man-to-Man/Government-to-Man relations

Does one have a legitimate claim of any rights to Liberty if one rejects Liberty's primary foundation for moral code? Patently not. Liberty's primary foundation for moral code must be accepted together as an Indivisible whole with Liberty's fundamental principles in order to make any legitimate claim of rights to its benefits. They cannot be arbitrarily accepted and rejected piece-meal. To do so guarantees that there will be no legitimate claim of right to any of Liberty's benefits at all. Which is why the previous posters question was so comical when he claimed a violation to his rights.

To that extent, the victim status card doesn't really work when provided by our libertine friends who fundamentally reject Natural Law in order to justify and poplularize anti-moral indulgences and philosophies. The war on drugs, although equally anti-moral, is just an extention of the inititial rejection of God's Law by those who are claiming arbitrary victim status by the government when the government goes after them in a manner consistent with anti-moral "legalities." They aren't mutually exclusive from one another. That's a false dichotomy. It's just a big circle jerk of their own doing, really.

[lilymc]

There is a fundamental difference between Legal and Lawful.

Very true. (Although some people might be confused by that choice of words.)

There's also a difference between what one can do, and what is wise. But that's a whole other topic. :)

And speaking of that, that's a lesson I wish I would've learned in my twenties, instead of years later. It would've saved me tons of stupid mistakes and wasted time.

[anaconda]

For the love of God:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?339354-Take-The-No-Levin-Challenge

[Natural Citizen]

Very true. (Although some people might be confused by that choice of words.)

There's also a difference between what one can do, and what is wise. But that's a whole other topic. :)

And speaking of that, that's a lesson I wish I would've learned in my twenties, instead of years later. It would've saved me tons of stupid mistakes and wasted time.

Yeah. Well. Better late than never. I toked on some Maui Wowie back in the day myself, lily. Heck, I've probably outpartied most of the youngins around here. It cracks me up sometimes when I hear/read the new breed telling us how it's done. Like we've never been there and done that. Heh.

[lilymc]

Yeah. Well. Better late than never. I toked on some Maui Waui back in the day myself, lily.

Yeah, you mentioned that before. I've tried just about everything, but I was never into marijuana. Back in my BC* days (which literally feels like a previous life) alcohol was my drug of choice. I wish I would've known then what I know now, but... as you said, better late than never.

Btw, speaking of asking what is wise.... this is a really good series: https://www.rightnow.org/Content/Series/157574#1 (don't know if you can see it if you're not logged into that website, but i think it's worth watching)

*before Christ

[Natural Citizen]

Yeah, you mentioned that before. I've tried just about everything, but I was never into marijuana. Back in my BC* days (which literally feels like a previous life) alcohol was my drug of choice. I wish I would've known then what I know now, but... as you said, better late than never.

Btw, speaking of asking what is wise.... this is a really good series: https://www.rightnow.org/Content/Series/157574#1 (don't know if you can see it if you're not logged into that website, but i think it's worth watching)

*before Christ

Yep. I'll check out your link later on. I'm getting off of here fr the moment.

I'll tell you, though. I'm reminded of something profound that Ron Paul had mentioned in the South Carolina Debate on 1-19-2012 in terms of the morality problem in the country. I'll share it here given that it's directly germane to the fundmental issue that's not often recognized...

In the 1960s, when the culture was changing, the vietnam war was going on, the drugs were there, the pornography came in, then abortion became prevalent even though it was illegal. So the morality of the country changed, but then the law followed up. When the morality changed, it will reflect on the laws. The law is very important(…), but the law will not correct the basic problem: that’s the morality of the people.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Yeah. Well. Better late than never. I toked on some Maui Wowie back in the day myself, lily. Heck, I've probably outpartied most of the youngins around here. It cracks me up sometimes when I hear/read the new breed telling us how it's done. Like we've never been there and done that. Heh.

Yeah, I'm sure the ditch weed was great....

;) Kidding of course.

[H. E. Panqui]

misterx was right about one thing. Your reading comprehension is horrible. I was discussing the Christian perspective of marijuana use, with a Christian (pcosmar). Which means I was not talking to anyone else. And I was not discussing the legal side of it, at all. Which misterx also stated to you, loud and clear, at least 5 times. Are you high right now, or what? :D You definitely seem to be paranoid and dazed and confused.

:rolleyes:

(...lol!... rjb hit a laser beam homerun on post #2 (and later on post #152) as to the statement made by the goddamned radio fool, mark levin...we all could have acknowledged rjb's concise veracity and left it at that....but noooooooooooooo...your first squawk was this dullardry:.. Originally Posted by misterxhttp://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6284288#post6284288)although they are extremely damaging to society.



I fully agree. I hate drugs with a passion....

:rolleyes:

...it's pretty obvious to anyone not a goddamned republicrat fool that you have never acknowleged/exposed the asinine statement by levin and that you negatively judge/squawk at 'drug' users while NEVER UTTERING A SQUAWK OF CONDEMNATION AGAINST THE REAL CRIMINALS HERE: ..the drug pigs...

...my reading comprehension is good enough to spot drug war pigs and apologists a mile away...;)

...and while rjb is maybe the type of person who hits laser-beam homeruns off of rotten loudmouth pitchers and trots around the bases quietly.....i'm the type of person who tries to hit laser-beam line drives back at the pitcher's fat head/mouth while heckling the rotten fool all game long... :D...and your drug war pigs deserve much worse...

[H. E. Panqui]

Well, what gives you that idea?

:confused:

(you're kidding, right?...

[pcosmar]

You are putting marijuana in a special category all on its own.

I am???
It was already put in a special category wrongly.

Who called it as a Schedule I narcotic ?

it is not a narcotic.

It is NOT a narcotic. in fact is closer to aspirin as a drug.

I think you have a misunderstanding of Cannabis. and your view is clouded with that misunderstanding.

There is a natural plant,, that has so many benefits (because God is like that in Abundance),, and so many uses..
and no toxic effects,

Paper, Rope Sails, Clothing, FOOD, Construction, And medical benefits that are only being discovered,, along with many long known.

and by dictate of man (not God) it is prohibited..

do you not ask yourself why ?

I have been a Christian Believer well over 30 yrs. and I am still learning and growing.
I know other believers that use Cannibis,, and their stories,,,

I maintain that it IS a gift from God.

[bunklocoempire]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i8FreOAHLM

[Natural Citizen]

To change my original statement a bit: The war on drugs is not a victimless crime.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. I don't. I mean, we're seeing families lose their homes and other property because a family member had some pot as well as prison sentences. We all know that. And we could keep going on with the list. It's been done here many times already. I've posted much on it myself. I'm of the view that people should be free to take any drug they want provided that their choices don't affect others. But that brings me to the more relevant issue that's ignored in the discussion...

It's a much broader topic than is often limited to and there are other topics that are fair to discuss in terms of the issue. But pot smokers like to control the terms of controversy in a way that limits discussion to their interest in it. End of the day, the more relevant discussion is the anti-moral condundrum in society. The fact of the matter is that the most dangerous and most unrecognized threat to Liberty today is the gradual erosion of morality/virtue in society. Without public morality there cannot and will not be liberty at all. This is the more critical "victimization." Liberty and Responsibility are as Indivisible as Liberty's fundamental principles and foundation for moral code. But libertines don't want to hear that. Nope. They don't want to have that discussion. Because the real victim of the moral conundrum is Liberty itself. Again, without public morality there cannot and will not be liberty at all.

What I'd mentioned in post #165 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?499288-Mark-Levin-Drugs-are-not-a-victimless-crime&p=6287255&viewfull=1#post6287255)is likely my final word on it.

[lilymc]

:rolleyes:

(...lol!... rjb hit a laser beam homerun on post #2 (and later on post #152) as to the statement made by the goddamned radio fool, mark levin...we all could have acknowledged rjb's concise veracity and left it at that....but noooooooooooooo...your first squawk was this dullardry:.. Originally Posted by misterxhttp://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6284288#post6284288)although they are extremely damaging to society.



I fully agree. I hate drugs with a passion....

:rolleyes:

...it's pretty obvious to anyone not a goddamned republicrat fool that you have never acknowleged/exposed the asinine statement by levin and that you negatively judge/squawk at 'drug' users while NEVER UTTERING A SQUAWK OF CONDEMNATION AGAINST THE REAL CRIMINALS HERE: ..the drug pigs...

...my reading comprehension is good enough to spot drug war pigs and apologists a mile away...;)

...and while rjb is maybe the type of person who hits laser-beam homeruns off of rotten loudmouth pitchers and trots around the bases quietly.....i'm the type of person who tries to hit laser-beam line drives back at the pitcher's fat head/mouth while heckling the rotten fool all game long... :D...and your drug war pigs deserve much worse...

You're barking up the wrong tree. Nobody here supports what the government is doing - using the "war on drugs" as a pretext to shred the bill of rights and to move us toward a police state. To be crystal clear with you, I absolutely oppose that and I think it's evil... especially considering who is bringing drugs into this country in the first place.

As Natural Citizen said, there are always a few different topics within the topic itself that are fair to discuss. And as he said, the topic of the war on drugs has already been done here many times. So should we talk about that over and over, every day, even though we're all in agreement.... and ignore any interesting sub-topics that naturally come up on threads like this?

I agree with NC that the more interesting and relevant topic to discuss is the moral conundrum and how that relates to true liberty.

So I'll tell you what. I'll discuss the angle that I would like to discuss, with anyone who wants to discuss it. And you can discuss the government's "war on drugs" with whoever wants to talk about that. Good luck finding someone to argue with on this forum. You might have better luck at freerepublic.com or another site.

[Natural Citizen]

So I'll tell you what. I'll discuss the angle that I would like to discuss, with anyone who wants to discuss it. And you can discuss the government's "war on drugs" with whoever wants to talk about that. Good luck finding someone to argue with on this forum.

Actually, you should make a topic on that. There is a case for Liberty to be made from a moral perspective. And there is a case to be made that Liberty is impossible when its primary foundation for moral code (Natural Law....God's Law) is rejected at a societal level. There is also a case to be made that the latter is actually happening in an organized way in liberty's name, no less. If you want help with it, let me know. It's something that's been at the tip of my tongue lately anyway given the growing libertine movement within the liberty movement. Of course, libertine is not libertarian at all. Again, there is a distinct difference between what is Legal and what is Lawful. So if we want to have a discussion in terms of true "victimization" and what that means in terms of Individual Liberty, then, I'm all for it. The problem that I see is that some friends are very selective in pulling out their arbitrary victim status card. Some friends don't think it all the way through to the point where their own contribution to the erosion of Individual Liberty as well as aggression from government becomes transparent. Again, we get into Liberty-Responsibility. Moral duty to adhere to a Higher Law. This Higher Law is what provides the legitimate claim of any rights to Liberty's benefit. To reject the Higher Law is a fundamental rejection of Liberty fully.

[Natural Citizen]

Actually, nevermind. I'll make a thread myself. I'm not doing it right this second, though.

[John F Kennedy III]

If God created all the plants, then he also created marijuana.

[H. E. Panqui]

...lol...i don't care if you guys try to hijack the thread with your religious ooga-booga...if it soothes your conscience to blame the victims of this stinking drug war, so be it...

...i'm sure nobody could look at your lives and see a WHOLE lot of goddamned foolery/debauchery... :rolleyes:

...and maybe you folks are part of the ?millions of drug pigs and other assorted republicrat peckerheads who profit from this destructive, goddamned fool drug war...and well, you know, you gotta have a job, right?...

(to paraphrase anderson:..if jesus saves, he'd better save himself from the brain-laundered republicrats who use his name in injustice..) ;)

[Natural Citizen]

...i'm sure nobody could look at your lives and see a WHOLE lot of goddamned foolery/debauchery... :rolleyes:

;)


Oh, they absolutely could. No doubt about it. Anyway. Yeah, I am going to start a separate topic on it. The reality is that if Individual Liberty's primary foundation for moral code is openly rejected at the societal level, then, Individuals or groups of Individuals that make up society cannot legitimately claim arbitrary victim status that their rights have been violated. A legitimate claim to any rights to Individual Liberty's benefits got tossed out the window when the primary foundation for Individual Liberty's moral code got rejected.

And I wasn't hijacking the thread. I'm just telling it like it is. But to accept what it truly is demands a fundamental understanding of where Individual Liberty actually comes from. Where our rights to claim victim status comes from.

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually, you should make a topic on that. There is a case for Liberty to be made from a moral perspective. And there is a case to be made that Liberty is impossible when its primary foundation for moral code (Natural Law....God's Law) is rejected at a societal level. There is also a case to be made that the latter is actually happening in an organized way in liberty's name, no less. If you want help with it, let me know. It's something that's been at the tip of my tongue lately anyway given the growing libertine movement within the liberty movement. Of course, libertine is not libertarian at all. Again, there is a distinct difference between what is Legal and what is Lawful. So if we want to have a discussion in terms of true "victimization" and what that means in terms of Individual Liberty, then, I'm all for it. The problem that I see is that some friends are very selective in pulling out their arbitrary victim status card. Some friends don't think it all the way through to the point where their own contribution to the erosion of Individual Liberty as well as aggression from government becomes transparent. Again, we get into Liberty-Responsibility. Moral duty to adhere to a Higher Law. This Higher Law is what provides the legitimate claim of any rights to Liberty's benefit. To reject the Higher Law is a fundamental rejection of Liberty fully.

This^^ The objective moral case for liberty is the best one, IMHO, because the others can be said to be arbitrary and subjective (I have heard this done...it's tenuous reasoning IMO, but there are people who believe it :eek: )

[Natural Citizen]

This^^ The objective moral case for liberty is the best one, IMHO, because the others can be said to be arbitrary and subjective (I have heard this done...it's tenuous reasoning IMO, but there are people who believe it :eek: )

Ah, yes. That's the word. Objective morality.

Somebody plus rep HB for me, please. I'm out of ammo.

[RJB]

I'm not at all sure why you directed this at me. This was in response to Mark Levin's point that "Drugs aren't a victimless crime," in the OP, not at any poster in particular.

On the scale of things, the legal system causes far more victims that drugs. I think we agree on that. I also know there are some people who smoke pot who are glued to their couch who shouldn't. This is definitely a moral issue and it's wise to fast regularly from vices for both health and spiritual reasons. There are indeed two sides to this. Infact I've +repped both Lillymc and Tod in this thread.

In an ideal society our votes should regulate the morality of government. What we have instead is a chance to vote for how an immoral government will dominate us.

I think it would be good for you to start another thread, because the subject deserves it and I see you are passionate about it.


I don't think anyone disagrees with this. I don't. I mean, we're seeing families lose their homes and other property because a family member had some pot as well as prison sentences. We all know that. And we could keep going on with the list. It's been done here many times already. I've posted much on it myself. I'm of the view that people should be free to take any drug they want provided that their choices don't affect others. But that brings me to the more relevant issue that's ignored in the discussion...

It's a much broader topic than is often limited to and there are other topics that are fair to discuss in terms of the issue. But pot smokers like to control the terms of controversy in a way that limits discussion to their interest in it. End of the day, the more relevant discussion is the anti-moral condundrum in society. The fact of the matter is that the most dangerous and most unrecognized threat to Liberty today is the gradual erosion of morality/virtue in society. Without public morality there cannot and will not be liberty at all. This is the more critical "victimization." Liberty and Responsibility are as Indivisible as Liberty's fundamental principles and foundation for moral code. But libertines don't want to hear that. Nope. They don't want to have that discussion. Because the real victim of the moral conundrum is Liberty itself. Again, without public morality there cannot and will not be liberty at all.

What I'd mentioned in post #165 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?499288-Mark-Levin-Drugs-are-not-a-victimless-crime&p=6287255&viewfull=1#post6287255)is likely my final word on it.

[Ender]

I am???
It was already put in a special category wrongly.

Who called it as a Schedule I narcotic ?

it is not a narcotic.

It is NOT a narcotic. in fact is closer to aspirin as a drug.

I think you have a misunderstanding of Cannabis. and your view is clouded with that misunderstanding.

There is a natural plant,, that has so many benefits (because God is like that in Abundance),, and so many uses..
and no toxic effects,

Paper, Rope Sails, Clothing, FOOD, Construction, And medical benefits that are only being discovered,, along with many long known.

and by dictate of man (not God) it is prohibited..

do you not ask yourself why ?

I have been a Christian Believer well over 30 yrs. and I am still learning and growing.
I know other believers that use Cannibis,, and their stories,,,

I maintain that it IS a gift from God.

Hemp is definitely a gift from God and THE most useful plant on the globe.

The reason its little sister, marijuana, is illegal is because hemp is so valuable. The big steel/cotton corps met with politicians and together they declared marijuana and hemp illegal and then made up bogus stories about them so citizens would comply. TPTB even started using the Mexican nickname "marijuana" to make it seem more evil to Americans.

Hemp is NOT a drug, but is related to marijuana which is much more medicinal than a drug- and also very valuable.

Here is a short vid on Ford's hemp car. It was mad of hemp and it ran on hemp.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srgE6Tzi3Lg

Hemp could almost immediately replace oil. The plant grows fast and never depletes the soil. Using hemp instead of oil would certainly get rid of our ME interventions.

In Washington's day, citizens were taxed for NOT growing hemp because it was so valuable. The Constitution was written on hemp; most of the great paintings from centuries ago survived because the canvas was made of hemp.

The banning of hemp and the game of making marijuana "evil" is all part of the military/industrial complex narrative.

[John F Kennedy III]

Threads on fluid creatures. If they stayed exactly on topic they'd die much quicker.

[dannno]

Narcotics diminish and dull one's consciousness.

Alcohol, opiates, cocaine and countless prescription drugs are narcotics.

Cannabis is not a narcotic, cannabis is a consciousness EXPANDING substance, it actually has the opposite effect of the drugs I listed. So does LSD, mushrooms, MDMA (molly/ecstacy), DMT, etc., these all expand your consciousness (they make you more aware of more environmental signals and properties)

People who think cannabis is a drug like alcohol, heroin or cocaine are misinformed or ignorant. I don't even really like to refer to it as a drug. It is also very helpful for a lot of people. The people who you think it might not be helpful for? Well, it is actually helpful for them because if they weren't toking herb they would be abusing some other drug, and cannabis is by far the best substance for people to abuse who are so inclined. They would be having far worse troubles if they were abusing any other drug, and they would have a more difficult time stopping.

[lilymc]

This^^ The objective moral case for liberty is the best one, IMHO, because the others can be said to be arbitrary and subjective (I have heard this done...it's tenuous reasoning IMO, but there are people who believe it :eek: )

I'm glad that some people here realize that.

NC, I'll +rep hb for you.

[lilymc]

Cannabis is not a narcotic, cannabis is a consciousness EXPANDING substance

lol.

[Natural Citizen]

People who think cannabis is a drug like alcohol, heroin or cocaine are misinformed or ignorant.

People who think the means can be separated from the end are the ones who are truly misinformed and ignorant when judged morally.

[Natural Citizen]

lol.

I doubt that anyone will figure out why you're laughing about that. :)

I don't know if we've talked about the consequences of the lost consciousness of sin around here, though. But I kind of chuckled, too.

[pcosmar]

lol.

AT WHAT DO YOU LAUGH ?

It is not a narcotic.. and it never was.
It was miss-classed deliberately. and for no good reasons.

and rebuilding brain connections is just one of the things it is known for.
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/pot-could-save-your-life-4-ways-cannabis-good-your-brain

unlike narcotics that kill brain cells,,cannabis promotes brain growth.

[John F Kennedy III]

lol.

Superb debate skillz.

[Natural Citizen]

Heh. Ruh Roh.

[lilymc]

I don't know if we've talked about the consequences of the lost consciousness of sin around here, though. But I kind of chuckled, too.

That's another interesting topic for a new thread. Based on everything I've seen, I believe that mind-altering (including mind "expanding") substances do just that, if they're used/abused over a long period of time. Of course it's not just drugs that do that. The bible says that sin in general separates us from God, and over time our conscience becomes dulled or deadened.

Once you have lost consciousness of sin, as you put it, a person doesn't even realize they're doing anything wrong or unhealthy... it becomes normal to them, or even a good thing in their mind.



AT WHAT DO YOU LAUGH ?

It is not a narcotic.. and it never was.
It was miss-classed deliberately. and for no good reasons.

and rebuilding brain connections is just one of the things it is known for.
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/pot-could-save-your-life-4-ways-cannabis-good-your-brain

unlike narcotics that kill brain cells,,cannabis promotes brain growth.


Call it what you want, it doesn't matter to me. The fact remains, it gets you stoned/high/under the influence... which from a biblical standpoint is a sin. I'm not saying this to be condemning. We all sin. I do, you do, everyone does... but let's not pretend we don't, or pretend that some things aren't sins, just because we are obsessed with that thing, and don't want to give it up. That's idolatry, which from a christian perspective is a serious thing.

[dannno]

People who think the means can be separated from the end are the ones who are truly misinformed and ignorant when judged morally.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Natural Citizen]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Natural Citizen http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6287750#post6287750)


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by dannno http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6287675#post6287675)

People who think cannabis is a drug like alcohol, heroin or cocaine are misinformed or ignorant.
People who think the means can be separated from the end are the ones who are truly misinformed and ignorant when judged morally.

What the $#@! are you talking about?


You. I didn't stutter.

[dannno]

Once you have lost consciousness of sin, as you put it, a person doesn't even realize they're doing anything wrong or unhealthy... it becomes normal to them, or even a good thing in their mind.



There is a lot of evidence that Jesus used cannabis for healing and spiritual purposes. He made wine for people, but told them not to get drunk.

I'm not sure why people think simply ingesting these substances is inherently a sin, Biblically or morally. Abusing them can lead to sinful behavior, but abusing potato chips and tv can do the same things. That doesn't mean eating some potato chips or turning on the tv is sinful. There are behavioral components.

[lilymc]

There is a lot of evidence that Jesus used cannabis for healing and spiritual purposes. He made wine for people, but told them not to get drunk.

I'm not sure why people think simply ingesting these substances is inherently a sin, Biblically or morally. Abusing them can lead to sinful behavior, but abusing potato chips and tv can do the same things. That doesn't mean eating some potato chips or turning on the tv is sinful. There are behavioral components.

Just to be clear, I don't believe that simply ingesting it is a sin. I fully agree that it has certain benefits and medicinal value. I was just talking about using it for getting high and getting addicted to it (psychologically). From a Christian perspective, those things are the problem. Also, people have different ideas on what constitutes abuse. That's why I said earlier that I wasn't aiming my posts at the non-christians here, because you are living by a completely different standard. :)

[Dary]

...First marijuana, then what? LSD? Shrooms? Imagine the horror if people got addicted to these dangerous substances, living forever in a bad trip they can't escape from because these substances are so incredibly addictive.

Lol!

For the life of me I can't imagine anyone ever being addicted to LSD or Shrooms. HAAAA!

No. The reason that they don't want those substances legal is because of what they reveal.

[Dr.3D]

Lol!

For the life of me I can't imagine anyone ever being addicted to LSD or Shrooms. HAAAA!

No. The reason that they don't want those substances legal is because of what they reveal.
TheTexan == Mr. Sarcasm here. :)

[RJB]

TheTexan == Mr. Sarcasm here. :)

No. I really believe that The Texan is truly addicted to LSD. That is the only explanation for his posts.

[Dary]

TheTexan == Mr. Sarcasm here. :)

Oh I know. I repped him.

[John F Kennedy III]

Lilymc, you are saying there are zero references to marijuana in the Bible?

[pcosmar]

Call it what you want, it doesn't matter to me. The fact remains, it gets you stoned/high/under the influence... which from a biblical standpoint is a sin. I'm not saying this to be condemning. We all sin. I do, you do, everyone does... but let's not pretend we don't, or pretend that some things aren't sins, just because we are obsessed with that thing, and don't want to give it up.

If you believe it is a sin then don't use it.. it would be a sin only because you believe it is.

but don't try to hang chains on me that have already been lifted.. I will not accept them.

I thank God for all that is Good,, Family, Food, drink,, weather,, and blessing the works of my hands.

I believe that Cannabis is a gift. and am thankful for it..

[pcosmar]

No. I really believe that The Texan is truly addicted to LSD. That is the only explanation for his posts.

Little known fact;

LSD was originally used to break addiction.. Alcoholism in particular..

And it was reasonably effective.
https://www.google.com/webhp?ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=lsd+alcohol+treatment

so much for "no known medical use".

[lilymc]

If you believe it is a sin then don't use it.. it would be a sin only because you believe it is.


"It"? Define "it." I never said that Cannabis in and of itself is a sin. You've been side-stepping my point. I have been talking getting stoned/high/under the influence... are you denying that that's a sin?



but don't try to hang chains on me that have already been lifted.. I will not accept them.

I'm beginning to realize that you already are chained... before I ever came along.



I thank God for all that is Good,, Family, Food, drink,, weather,, and blessing the works of my hands.


Nobody has said that that any of those things are bad. That's a straw man.

[pcosmar]

Just to be clear, I don't believe that simply ingesting it is a sin. I fully agree that it has certain benefits and medicinal value. I was just talking about using it for getting high and getting addicted to it (psychologically). From a Christian perspective, those things are the problem. Also, people have different ideas on what constitutes abuse. That's why I said earlier that I wasn't aiming my posts at the non-christians here, because you are living by a completely different standard. :)

Ok,,

Let me be clear.
I have not been a regular user all my life.. But I did become an advocate after finding out that I had been lied to about "weed".

Much like Santa Clause,,the Easter Bunny and a Constitutional Republic,,, I had been lied to..
I experimented with literally everything available when in the Army.. in the 70s,, the Army ran on drugs.

over the years I was only an occasional user. I was on parole for many years,, and under supervision. Tested regularly and irregularly.

I have only become a regular user in the last year,, living in legal states.

I wish I had have been smoking regularly when I was cutting wood. Though I noticed the job was easier on those occasions when someone had shown me a little kindness.
having been using continuously for the last year, I am experiencing several benefits.

Mental health foremost, It keeps Depression in check,, even in otherwise stressful situations. A mood stabilizer,, more than an enhancement.
Sativa Strains I have been using are also great for my back. without making me lazy. I have discontinued aspirin use,, which was getting excessive in my mind.


I am still fairly active,, and at work every day. (Honey is glad I am not cutting trees)
and my Boss is fine with my smoke breaks.

I feel no urge to rape or pillage..
I am still prone to righteous Anger,, but don't get angry over minutia. (not a moodless,mindless zombie like most anti-depressants)

the only drawback is the price,, but it still is affordable medication, even at the poverty level income I am maintaining. (for tax purpose)

[John F Kennedy III]

"It"? Define "it." I never said that Cannabis in and of itself is a sin. You've been side-stepping my point. I have been talking getting stoned/high/under the influence... are you denying that that's a sin?




I'm beginning to realize that you already are chained... before I ever came along.




Nobody has said that that any of those things are bad. That's a straw man.

Weather can be bad.

[H. E. Panqui]

natural citizen asserts: "The reality is that if Individual Liberty's primary foundation for moral code is openly rejected at the societal level, then, Individuals or groups of Individuals that make up society cannot legitimately claim arbitrary victim status that their rights have been violated. A legitimate claim to any rights to Individual Liberty's benefits got tossed out the window when the primary foundation for Individual Liberty's moral code got rejected."

:confused:

...ugh...'the reality' is that the 'primary foundation' for 'individual liberty' is an intelligent, compassionate, and TOLERANT citizenry...certainly we don't/won't have any liberty-oriented society that is peopled by intolerant goddamned fools who use government to hurt people because of the plants they use, etc..

...and lilymc, supposedly jesus said something like, 'he without sin cast the first stone'...he didn't say, 'he who uses marijuana needs/deserves to be slut-shamed'..

...as to natural citizen's references to 'libertinism' and marijuana use:..one wonders whether natural citizen is one of those 'libertines' who tolerates women showing their ankles..blacks and whites having sexual relations, etc. ad nauseam..

...and btw natural citizen, it seems to me 'individual liberty's benefits [get] tossed out the window when intolerant boobs toss individual liberty out the window...pretty simple...pretty clear..

...and what of the 'moral code' of the drug pigs who, for one example, swore to 'uphold the constitution'...yet they are so ignorant/dismissive of the con. they violate it routinely in the enactment, enforcement, etc., of this goddamned monstrous fool drug prohibition...seems you folks are oblivious to/silent about lots and lots of immoral drug piggery...

..pssst btw, the republicrat radio peckerhead mark levin is obviously trying hard to CONvince people that 'the drug war is justified'..lilymc and misterx, etc., would be smart to really really distance themselves from these pathetic republicrat 'anti-drug' fools...

[lilymc]

Ok,,

Let me be clear.
I have not been a regular user all my life.. But I did become an advocate after finding out that I had been lied to about "weed".

Much like Santa Clause,,the Easter Bunny and a Constitutional Republic,,, I had been lied to..
I experimented with literally everything available when in the Army.. in the 70s,, the Army ran on drugs.

over the years I was only an occasional user. I was on parole for many years,, and under supervision. Tested regularly and irregularly.

I have only become a regular user in the last year,, living in legal states.

I wish I had have been smoking regularly when I was cutting wood. Though I noticed the job was easier on those occasions when someone had shown me a little kindness.
having been using continuously for the last year, I am experiencing several benefits.

Mental health foremost, It keeps Depression in check,, even in otherwise stressful situations. A mood stabilizer,, more than an enhancement.
Sativa Strains I have been using are also great for my back. without making me lazy. I have discontinued aspirin use,, which was getting excessive in my mind.


I am still fairly active,, and at work every day. (Honey is glad I am not cutting trees)
and my Boss is fine with my smoke breaks.

I feel no urge to rape or pillage..
I am still prone to righteous Anger,, but don't get angry over minutia. (not a moodlees,mindless zombie like most anti-depressants)

the only drawback is the price,, but it still is affordable medication, even at the poverty level income I am maintaining. (for tax purpose)

Thank you for elaborating on your situation. I appreciate it. As I said before, I don't believe there's anything wrong with using drugs for medicinal purposes.

I hope I wasn't being too hard on you in my previous post. It's just that I've noticed that many pot-users become practically obsessed with it, to the point of denying that it can ever be misused or become an idol.

[Natural Citizen]

natural citizen asserts: "The reality is that if Individual Liberty's primary foundation for moral code is openly rejected at the societal level, then, Individuals or groups of Individuals that make up society cannot legitimately claim arbitrary victim status that their rights have been violated. A legitimate claim to any rights to Individual Liberty's benefits got tossed out the window when the primary foundation for Individual Liberty's moral code got rejected."

:confused:

...ugh...'the reality' is that the 'primary foundation' for 'individual liberty' is an intelligent, compassionate, and TOLERANT citizenry...certainly we don't/won't have any liberty-oriented society that is peopled by intolerant goddamned fools who use government to hurt people because of the plants they use, etc..

...as to natural citizen's references to 'libertinism' and marijuana use:..one wonders whether natural citizen is one of those 'libertines' who tolerates women showing their ankles..blacks and whites having sexual relations, etc. ad nauseam..

...and btw natural citizen, it seems to me 'individual liberty's benefits [get] tossed out the window when intolerant boobs toss individual liberty out the window...pretty simple...pretty clear...

You don't even know what you're debating. And you sure as hell have no grasp on the relevance of my points. I can tell by your response. Go color.

[Natural Citizen]

Weather can be bad.

They're having a civil discussion. A good one, too. Nobody asked for the peanut gallery to chime in on their conversation. Stop trolling.

[pcosmar]

"It"? Define "it."

It can be anything I suppose. Though Galatians 5 does go into it..

We know that an Idol is nothing.. but if you believe the idol is something,,then it is sin for you.. Stay away.

everyone is at different points in their growth,, and I mean to place no stumbling blocks..

I would rather remove them completely.

[TheTexan]

Its threads like these that make me so thankful, for Government. For keeping my streets safe, of pot smoking hippies who can't hold a job.

Amen.

[Natural Citizen]

Its threads like these that make me so thankful, for Government. For keeping my streets safe, of pot smoking hippies who can't hold a job.

Amen.

Nobody here is asking for more government. I'm certainly not. Quite the opposite, actually. Really, the only people who are truly trashing Individual Liberty are the anti-moral folks in the thread who are under the illusion that they can reject Individual Liberty's primary foundation for moral code and still accept its fundamental principles piece-meal. That's not how Individual Liberty works. Its foundation for moral code must be accepted together with its fundamental principles as an Indivisible whole if one expects to make a claim of right to the benefits of Liberty fully. If one rejects the fundamentals, then, they will have no liberty by default. Arbitrary victim status card is not valid in that case. Not that they ever really are anyway.

So many people here are clueless as to what Individual liberty actually means and what makes it so.

[lilymc]

It can be anything I suppose. Though Galatians 5 does go into it..

We know that an Idol is nothing.. but if you believe the idol is something,,then it is sin for you.. Stay away.

everyone is at different points in their growth,, and I mean to place no stumbling blocks..

I would rather remove them completely.

True, but that's a different issue. You didn't reply to my whole post, only the first sentence. My main point (which I've stated so many times I've lost count) never got addressed by you. But repeating myself is getting tiring, so I'm not going to keep doing this.

[pcosmar]

Its threads like these that make me so thankful, for Government. For keeping my streets safe, of pot smoking hippies who can't hold a job.

Amen.

Snork,,,,

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/611/23526298772_04e51f25c2_z.jpg
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5763/23339159770_2944287273_z.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5731/23634920405_5e63f4d610_c.jpg

I'm a conservative hippy. ;)

[pcosmar]

True, but that's a different issue. You didn't reply to my whole post, only the first sentence. My main point (which I've stated so many times I've lost count) never got addressed by you. But repeating myself is getting tiring, so I'm not going to keep doing this.

Yes I did read your post,, I commented on the "it",, as in "It is a sin".

Which was your post about cannabis use. Your point,, and one I disagree with..
and perhaps better suited to the Religion sub forum,, but it is one of the highly cited reasons for continued prohibition.

and so must be addressed. as a Christian Believer,, I will address it.
And can on several levels and from several directions of scripture if you wish..

I can also correct the entire concept of Government authority,, which is often grossly confused due to bad teaching.

Government has no authority to prohibit gifts from God.
When it does so,, it is wrong.

[H. E. Panqui]

You don't even know what you're debating. And you sure as hell have no grasp on the relevance of my points. I can tell by your response. Go color.

:rolleyes:

...get real...for one thing, it's pretty obvious you are making the claim that 'individual liberty's moral code gets rejected' (ugh) when people use drugs you don't approve..

..btw, your writing/thinking is riddled with fallacies of reification...i can tell by your responses...have a brownie and chill.. ;)

[Natural Citizen]

:rolleyes:

...get real...for one thing, it's pretty obvious you are making the claim that 'individual liberty's moral code gets rejected' (ugh) when people use drugs you don't approve..

..btw, your writing/thinking is riddled with fallacies of reification...i can tell by your responses...have a brownie and chill.. ;)

I thought you were coloring. Pssst...

[Natural Citizen]

:rolleyes:

...get real...for one thing, it's pretty obvious you are making the claim that 'individual liberty's moral code gets rejected' (ugh) when people use drugs you don't approve..

..btw, your writing/thinking is riddled with fallacies of reification...i can tell by your responses...have a brownie and chill.. ;)

But, no, seriously, I'm not really making the argument that you think I am. I don't really care if people take drugs. It's not for me to judge.

But if the rules that you make for yourself affects me, then it's my business. If it affects my right to claim Liberty's benefits, it's my business.

[lilymc]

Yes I did read your post,,

I didn't say that you didn't read my post. I said that you only quoted the first sentence and you never addressed my main point.



I commented on the "it",, as in "It is a sin".

Which was your post about cannabis use. Your point,, and one I disagree with..
and perhaps better suited to the Religion sub forum,, but it is one of the highly cited reasons for continued prohibition.
and so must be addressed. as a Christian Believer,, I will address it.
And can on several levels and from several directions of scripture if you wish..


No, again I never said that mere "cannabis use" is a sin. That is a misrepresentation. You're still ignoring my main point. Please post my complete quote and reply to my main point. Or not. As I said, I've gotten tired of repeating myself.



I can also correct the entire concept of Government authority,, which is often grossly confused due to bad teaching.

Government has no authority to prohibit gifts from God.
When it does so,, it is wrong.

Different topic.

[H. E. Panqui]

But, no, seriously, I'm not really making the argument that you think I am. I don't really care if people take drugs. It's not for me to judge.

:rolleyes:

Again, ...get real...for one thing, it's pretty obvious you are making the claim that 'individual liberty's moral code gets rejected' (ugh) when people use drugs you don't approve..

...OWN UP, MAN... ;)

[lilymc]

Nobody here is asking for more government. I'm certainly not. Quite the opposite, actually.

Is it just me, or is this thread making you want to bang your head against the wall? :p The inability of some to grasp the point above = more proof that those same people should probably lay off the wacky tobbacy.


Really, the only people who are truly trashing Individual Liberty are the anti-moral folks in the thread. They just don't know they are. But then, they're libertines. They're not libertarians. Is what it is.

That's what ironic. It reminds me of the book Brave New World. You might know what I mean, but if not I'll explain it on the new thread.

[Natural Citizen]

:rolleyes:

it's pretty obvious you are making the claim that individual liberty's moral code gets rejected when people use drugs

That's exactly what I'm saying. There's nothing to own up to. I've said it a hundred times around here. And I'll say it a hundred more. If you've read my postings here, then, my position on it is obvious. I went out of my way to be specific so that my point was made clear. The only person that played dumb was dannno but he knew exactly what I was talking about.

What we have are a bunch of libertines who are confused and think they're libertarian. Libertine is not libertarian. The problem becomes that the libertines start promoting the wrong message of liberty. It's counterintuitive to the cause.

If someone is anti-moral, I'll tell them to their face if they want to push the issue. I have absolutely zero problem "owning up" as you say. None.

[H. E. Panqui]

lilymc republicrats: Is it just me, or is this thread making you want to bang your head against the wall? :p The inability of some to grasp the point above = more proof that those same people should probably lay off the wacky tobbacy.

:rolleyes:

...is it just me or has anyone else figured out that lilymc really really hates drugs and that ?she's trying hard (and failing) to justify her ignorant judgementalism? ;)

[Natural Citizen]

Is it just me, or is this thread making you want to bang your head against the wall? :p The inability of some to grasp the point above = more proof that those same people should probably lay off the wacky tobbacy.

People just don't understand liberty. I find that to be frustrating more than anything. The prideful arguments, I just see for what they are. Pride. And you now what they say about pride. It's an ignorant sin. Is what it is. I say my peace and dust my feet. Let the Lord sort em out. I might be wrong to say that but that's how I feel about it.




That's what ironic. It reminds me of the book Brave New World. You might know what I mean, but if not I'll explain it on the new thread.

Ha. No, I read it. This is why I placed the phenomenon that we're seeing of immorality (technically it's anti-morality) being popuarized in terms of a social disease. Because that's wha tit is. It's a social disease. Certainly if an Individual wants to take drugs and he isn't harming anyone else by it, then, whatever. But when it becomes a popularized mainstream way of life that is promoted in an organized way for the purpose of making immorality seem moral, then, we end up with a societal problem. And, again, the most unrecognized threat to Individual Liberty today is the gradual erosion of morality in society as a whole. There must be public morality for Individual Liberty to exist and function. Without it, it won't. And it can't.

But yeah. Libertines are kind of leftist. Culturally Marxist, really. So that's what we have going on. And in "Liberty", no less. It's crazy stuff.

[H. E. Panqui]

...hmmm... :confused:?so apparently people who enjoy occasional wine, cigars, coca cola, and maybe even girls who show their ankles, etc., can't be libertarians...they are 'libertines'...and they are immoral and their immorality erodes 'liberty'...okey dokey... :rolleyes:

[Natural Citizen]

...hmmm... :confused:?so apparently people who enjoy occasional wine, cigars, coca cola, and maybe even girls who show their ankles, etc., can't be libertarians...they are 'libertines'...and they are immoral and their immorality erodes 'liberty'...okey dokey... :rolleyes:

Nope. That's not what I said. I answered your specific question about drugs and anti-morality.

If you were looking for a different answer, then, you should have asked about drugs...and...."occasional wine, cigars, coca cola, and maybe even girls who show their ankles, etc."

You're being intellectually dishonest now, H. E. Panqui. You're projecting more into my specific answer to your specific question. Please don't do that.

[lilymc]

And, again, the most unrecognized thread to Individual Liberty today is the gradual erosion of morality in society as a whole. There must be public morality for Individual Liberty to exist and function. Without it, it won;t. And it can't.

I agree. And the TPTB know that, which is why they promote the upside-down stuff, as well as "bread and circuses" to keep people preoccupied and distracted with stupid, addictive things.

That brings to mind that famous list of communist goals...you know the one? A few of the goals had to do with breaking down morality and promoting lies... There's a lot to this, but we can save it for that other thread.

[Natural Citizen]

I agree. And the TPTB know that, which is why they promote the upside-down stuff, as well as "bread and circuses" to keep people preoccupied and distracted with stupid, addictive things.

That brings to mind that famous list of communist goals...you know the one? A few of the goals had to do with breaking down morality and promoting lies... There's a lot to this, but we can save it for that other thread.

Yep. I know what you're talking about. It's probably too late to start a thread now. Maybe tomorrow. I was going to think about it for a bit.

It's true, though, what you mention . It seems to me, and I'm trying to prove my theory wrong (but people aren't helping matters), that we have a cultural Marxist philosophy being promoted in the name of Liberty. And at its sacrifice, no less. It's interesting coercion. It's true that people who generally participate in coercion understand very little of their own participation in its function. And know nothing of its consequence. Seems like we have people promoting cultural Marxism except they think they're promoting liberty. I hate to use the term useful idiots, but that's really the only correct word to use.

Cultural Marxists really are the true establishment. What's also interesting as far as the elections go is that we're seeing the two-party system that has traditionally functioned as one party expanding into a single party functioning as three by expanding to the Libertarian Party.

[John F Kennedy III]

They're having a civil discussion. A good one, too. Nobody asked for the peanut gallery to chime in on their conversation. Stop trolling.

I don't troll. Go away.

[lilymc]

Seems like we have people promoting cultural Marxism except they think they're promoting liberty.

You just hit the nail on the head.

/ thread.

[P3ter_Griffin]

I think danno nailed it. Weed can be used and it can be abused. I have only abused other drugs so I can't speak to whether they are in the same manner. I'd recommend for the drug nazis The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge (https://www.amazon.com/Teachings-Don-Juan-Yaqui-Knowledge/dp/0671600419).

[TheTexan]

Nobody here is asking for more government. I'm certainly not. Quite the opposite, actually. Really, the only people who are truly trashing Individual Liberty are the anti-moral folks in the thread who are under the illusion that they can reject Individual Liberty's primary foundation for moral code and still accept its fundamental principles piece-meal. That's not how Individual Liberty works. Its foundation for moral code must be accepted together with its fundamental principles as an Indivisible whole if one expects to make a claim of right to the benefits of Liberty fully. If one rejects the fundamentals, then, they will have no liberty by default. Arbitrary victim status card is not valid in that case. Not that they ever really are anyway.

So many people here are clueless as to what Individual liberty actually means and what makes it so.


Agreed. I also think, shaming and shunning people who smoke weed in their homes, is a central pillar of protecting individual liberty.

[H. E. Panqui]

Nope. That's not what I said. I answered your specific question about drugs and anti-morality.

If you were looking for a different answer, then, you should have asked about drugs...and...."occasional wine, cigars, coca cola, and maybe even girls who show their ankles, etc."

You're being intellectually dishonest now, H. E. Panqui. You're projecting more into my specific answer to your specific question. Please don't do that.
:confused:

...you take a lot of pride in your great knowledge of liberty, nc...so help me out here...now you seem to be saying occasional wine, cigars, coca cola, and ankles are ok with you/not immoral...is occasional marijuana ok with you? :confused:

[Natural Citizen]

I think danno nailed it. Weed can be used and it can be abused. I have only abused other drugs so I can't speak to whether they are in the same manner. I'd recommend for the drug nazis The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge (https://www.amazon.com/Teachings-Don-Juan-Yaqui-Knowledge/dp/0671600419).

Ha. I have that book.

[Natural Citizen]

is occasional marijuana ok with you? :confused:

I don't care what people do so long as it doesn't affect me. If the choices people make affect me, then I care.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Ha. I have that book.

Yes, and so I'm sure you can understand when I say, someone using it('your power', if IIRC how he referred to it) as a means for enlightenment is no different than someone picking up a book for enlightenment. Wouldn't you say?

[Natural Citizen]

I can't believe we're still debating this sht at 3:30 in the morning. Is anyone smokin a bone or what? I'm having some coffee.

[Natural Citizen]

Yes, and so I'm sure you can understand when I say, someone using it('your power', if IIRC how he referred to it) as a means for enlightenment is no different than someone picking up a book for enlightenment. Wouldn't you say?

Eh. Most books are just some random author's written expression of his worldly own biases. Heck, you know that.

Now, the actual high, heck, I've been high before. I wouldn't call it enlightenment. I didn't learn anything. I was just high. It felt good, though. But I bumbled around like a mofo. I couldn't even function.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Eh. Most books are just some random author's written expression of his own biases. Heck, you know that.

Now, the actual high, heck, I've been high before. I wouldn't call it enlightenment. I didn't learn anything. I was just high. It felt good, though. But I bumbled around like a mofo. I couldn't even function.

It wasn't till my second go around (I had quit for a few years) that I used it in any beneficial sort of way. I'd say you should give it an earnest second shot. I don't know, maybe I'm being a little judgemental here, I have only my experiences, but being 'functional' (getting high and going for a hike, watching a movie, hanging with friends, etc) I think would be the abuse. Don Juan wasn't getting fucked up and going out to the amusement park, he had his 'spot'.

[H. E. Panqui]

I don't care what people do so long as it doesn't affect me. If the choices people make affect me, then I care.

:confused::confused:

...but you are already on record asserting 'that individual liberty's moral code gets rejected when people use drugs'...certainly you care about 'individual liberty's moral code being rejected'....this 'affects' you, right? :confused: ...so you really do 'care,' don't you? :confused:

...a little tip...a little reality...save your scorn and tongue-clucking for the goddamned drug pigs and their apologists...in reality, these are the people LARGELY responsible for the erosion of individual liberty...;) ...certainly not the fans of god's seed-bearing marijuana...

[Natural Citizen]

It wasn't till my second go around (I had quit for a few years) that I used it in any beneficial sort of way. I'd say you should give it an earnest second shot. I don't know, maybe I'm being a little judgemental here, I have only my experiences, but being 'functional' (getting high and going for a hike, watching a movie, hanging with friends, etc) I think would be the abuse. Don Juan wasn't getting $#@!ed up and going out to the amusement park, he had his 'spot'.

I don't know, man. I'm getting old. My party days are in the wind. Plus my worldview has changed significantly. I'm thinking I'm probably going to try to find a warm beach some place and a long legged brunette that'll treat me right and sip on pina coladas with some Mariachi in the background in my old age.

I'm kind of getting tired of politics, too. It's a miserable atmosphere. Depending on the issue, I do pop my mouth off sometimes, though. Mainly social issues these days. Opinions vary on things. Is what it is.

[P3ter_Griffin]

I don't know, man. I'm getting old. My party days are in the wind. I'm thinking I'm probably going to try to find a warm beach some place and a long legged brunette that'll threat me right and sip on pina coladas with some Mariachi in the background in my old age.

I'm kind of getting tired of politics, too. It's a miserable atmosphere. Depending on the issue, I do pop my mouth off sometimes, though. Mainly social issues these days. Opinions vary on things. Is what it is.

You should man. The resources to live a good life don't come easy. Enjoy the shit out of it and the long legged burenette. I've tried to stop thinking about this shit several times. All I can say is good luck. ;) I do take breaks. It's easy to get a bit to zoomed in a break can help to restore the big picture. But ignoring it is like trying to ignore an elephant in the room, after you have noticed there is an elephant in the room. Or so I find.

[Ender]

Here's a great link to Ben Swann on the subject:

https://www.facebook.com/BenSwannRealityCheck/videos/vb.124075334324092/1186089948122620/?type=2&theater