Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       10-24-2011, 8:59 AM Reply   
he can't even make his mind up on smoke....

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2011-1...s-war-on-weed/
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-24-2011, 9:07 AM Reply   
Obama is such a tool that he doesn't even know how to get his head out of his a$$. Unfortunately so is everyone else in politics.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       10-24-2011, 2:33 PM Reply   
Big government can force more power over us by way of fear mongering and violence. Ending prohibition pulls the rug out from under the drug cartels, eliminates the need (or perceived need) for the DEA, large police forces, drug dogs, unconstitutional searches by way of road blocks, airport screening, and so many other things the government does that are truly despicable but those in power cling too. Of course you can't forget all taxes all those organizations and practices bring. I for one could stand to be taxed a lot less and have less crime on the streets. End prohibition. Unfortunately Obama won't, and neither will any of the neocon candidates.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-24-2011, 7:04 PM Reply   
How about drug users stop supporting terrorists and drug cartels and stop using drugs.
Old    Jeff Moore (jeff359)      Join Date: Jun 2005       10-24-2011, 7:23 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
How about drug users stop supporting terrorists and drug cartels and stop using drugs.

Or only buy locally grown, top shelf medical bud, not the mexican shake.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-25-2011, 6:34 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
How about drug users stop supporting terrorists and drug cartels and stop using drugs.
Why not just make it illegal to make guns?
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-25-2011, 8:52 AM Reply   
^Because our forefathers wanted us to be able to blow each other away with Uzi's and AK's.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-25-2011, 9:31 AM Reply   
^In a well regulated way. Which apparently means make sure Mexicans get some.
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       10-25-2011, 11:39 AM Reply   
Nah, it means make sure criminals, mexicans and everyone else in the world have full autos. We'll keep the regulations and the semi's.
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       10-25-2011, 11:40 AM Reply   
---- Obama is such a tool that he doesn't even know how to get his head out of his a$$. Unfortunately so is everyone else in politics.

I knew there would be a day when this was obvious. I just didn't think it would take this long....
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       10-25-2011, 12:01 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
How about drug users stop supporting terrorists and drug cartels and stop using drugs.
If it's all legal then there will be no terrorist groups and drug cartels selling any. Their expertise is smuggling and they depend on the insanely high drug prices that come with prohibition. End prohibition and there will be legal vendors for drugs regulated just like alcohol and tobacco and taxed similarly as well. It would create jobs and increase government revenue while greatly decreasing government expenses... and of course crime would instantly drop since people committing these victimless crimes would no longer be breaking any laws.

It's far better to end prohibition than to expect recreational drug users to stop using drugs. It's none of your business and none of my business what other people do in the privacy of their own home and prohibition just causes all sorts of problems and creates all sorts of expenses, not to mention violation the rights of every one of us to do as we please with our own bodies.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       10-26-2011, 8:15 AM Reply   
Cory, that only works in a society with personal accountability. We do not live in such a society. We live in a society where personal responsibility is removed at every corner.

If someone decides to put some chemical in their body that causes problems, its my nickel that is taken from me to fix them. If someone isnt smart enough to wear a helmet, its my nickel that is taken from me to scrape their head off the road. As long as it is my nickel being taken to fix stupidity, then I was laws against stupidity.

If society would like to absolve me of being fiscally responsible for others mistakes, then I say legalize everything. Let the job market control it. Create high legal penalties for companies whose mistakes are caused by those under the influence of drugs. No drug user will ever be able to get a job. They die off natually and the problem fixes itself. No need for overcrowded prisons or expensive wars on drugs. You simply make everone accountable for themselves.

...but we wont do that. We are too "civilized" to require personal accountability, so we will all live with a nanny state.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-26-2011, 8:25 AM Reply   
IMHO, the DEA probably received numerous complaints or have become aware about accidential consumption of "special" Brownies and other sweets. The problem is kids and the elerdy have been given the "special" treats by mistake and start "freaking" out, so this alone is reason enough to start a "crack" down. In reality, this is just another way/reason to confiscate property and raise money for the Feds.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-26-2011, 9:01 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_ssr View Post
If someone decides to put some chemical in their body that causes problems, its my nickel that is taken from me to fix them. If someone isnt smart enough to wear a helmet, its my nickel that is taken from me to scrape their head off the road. As long as it is my nickel being taken to fix stupidity, then I was laws against stupidity.
Let me tell you how that fiscal responsibility works in cheap Florida. There is a guy who got caught trying to kill himself with IIRC 30 oxycodone pills he had ilegally. He's facing a mandatory prison sentence of 15 years. In good ole cheap Florida that's $300K at today's prices plus the cost of the prosecution.

So not even considering the obsurdity and heinous nature of imprisoning someone for 15 years for this, I'd say the taxpayer is the one getting the shaft.

Quote:
Create high legal penalties for companies whose mistakes are caused by those under the influence of drugs.
There is a doctor here that got caught giving oxycodone to a minor in return for sex. What he didn't get caught for was selling 1/4 million oxycondone does in 8 months. IOW the distributor/manufacturer was completely above board and had no idea that a 1/4 million doses from one doctor was too much.

Quote:
No drug user will ever be able to get a job. They die off natually and the problem fixes itself. No need for overcrowded prisons or expensive wars on drugs. You simply make everone accountable for themselves.
Is this some kind of fantasy world you live in? This is a thread about pot. More people die from alcohol. And far more from prescription drugs that are legally prescribed.
Old    Small Light (stephan)      Join Date: Nov 2002       10-26-2011, 9:44 AM Reply   
Jason, I don't see how legalizing drugs would make any difference on personal accountability. Drugs are currently illegal, yet readily available. The fact that you don't do drugs proves personal accountability, you don't when they are illegal and since you like having a job, you wouldn't do them if they were legal. Also, what impact would legality have on your responsibility for others? Aren't you already paying enough for stupid people? If you generate a tax stream from the stupids they would in turn pay more for themselves.

The people that already do drugs would likely continue and our justice system would focus on things that they might have an impact on. Plus, where do you think all that drug/alcohol treatment money comes from? It comes from the taxes that are assessed from the sale of prescription drugs and alcohol. Its morbid (yet genius) fiscal policy, find something people are hooked on and tax the piss out of it.

As a first step, make marijuana legal and use it as a 3 year case study. I believe that is why CA is always trying to push this to the forefront. What is the harm of really exploring what will happen? Its pretty obvious that the current system is F-ed.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-26-2011, 9:50 AM Reply   
Jason is unwittingly trying to make the case that the govt should regulate the food industry out of existence. Just about everything you buy from fast food to sit down restaurants, to 3/4 of a grocery store contents is creating an enormously expensive health problem in the US. Add that to the huge health problems created by the pharmaceuticals playing Dr Frankenstein with children and the public in general.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-26-2011, 12:06 PM Reply   
The fact is, legalizing drugs would put a damper on sales for pharmaceutical companies. Ever wonder why there is a crusade from the Feds to arrest cancer patients using medical marijuana? And as long as these companies are allowed to kick millions towards politicians' campaigns, nothing is going to change. Personally, I think the country is much safer with people legally popping O.C.'s like M&M's instead of people being able to smoke a bowl.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       10-26-2011, 1:04 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan View Post
Jason, I don't see how legalizing drugs would make any difference on personal accountability. Drugs are currently illegal, yet readily available. The fact that you don't do drugs proves personal accountability, you don't when they are illegal and since you like having a job, you wouldn't do them if they were legal.
Thank you. I went through this argument last week with someone at work. He was under the impression if drugs were legal, not just weed but all recreational drugs, that all of a sudden everyone and their brother would be meth heads. Of course when I asked him if he would do meth he said absolutely not... To which I responded, just like everyone else in the country. Those who do those hard drugs are going to do it regardless. It being illegal doesn't stop anyone. Those who don't do drugs are not going to start.

The added bonus of ending prohibition of all drugs is that those who are users and realize they have a problem can actually seek help for their addictions. Right now they won't seek help due to laws mandating disclosure and reporting to police. Seeking help means going to jail. Without prohibition seeking help would mean getting help.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-27-2011, 4:54 AM Reply   
Two issues.

First, drugs are illegal now and you can face huge impacts but yet people still buy and use them. Either people are lying about the cost of enforcement since no one is concerned about getting arrested or they are so powerful as to make the so called risk worth the reward? OR is enforcement really that expensive but the volume is so much that people still don't care? If the volume is so much, then why would the cartels care if we make it legal. They are still going to flood the market because they can undercut legal means that will be taxed to death and have to make it to standards. The issue of illegal drugs and cartels will not change.

What company in their right mind is going to sell these drugs for street use? They will be tied down with law suit after lawsuit.

Again, if pot users are so upset about the cost of the drug war then why continue to be the means of the war. No market = no war. Like I stated, legality will not stop illegal import of it. The laws were on the books way before you started using so I don't know what leg you have to stand on in regards to it. I love the line about those who don't do drugs are not going to start. Highly laughable because I doubt anyone on this board was born with a bong in their hands.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-27-2011, 4:57 AM Reply   
Also, seeking help with addiction absolutely does not mean disclosure to the police. That is a cop out (pardon the pun). People who are drug abusers do not realize they have a problem. That is the point. Usually when you realize it, you are way down the road. You are free to get counciling at any point without any issues from the police. Tens of thousands of people do it yearly (but no one has a drug problem).
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-27-2011, 5:49 AM Reply   
That's right. Those civil rights protesters in the 60's didn't have a leg to stand on because the lack of civil rights were law before they were born. Delta, you continue to amaze me with with your stupidity. You'd think I'd be over that by now.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       10-27-2011, 7:52 AM Reply   
^ What John said.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-27-2011, 8:16 AM Reply   
"What company in their right mind is going to sell these drugs for street use? They will be tied down with law suit after lawsuit."

Is this a serious statement? Alcohol kills far more people annually than any drug. I don't see Miller, Amheiser Busch, Jack Daniels, Phillip Morris, etc., etc., etc. worried about lawsuits.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-27-2011, 8:25 AM Reply   
Nice attack John. How about you actually admit for once that you have nothing to counter with except a personal attack. You don't have an argument unless you liken drug users with black people. Never knew a crack head was a race of people. Who knew. I guess you are the smartest person in the room after all John. Nice to know you have such special friends like Cory to back you up. Even less of a independent thinker. He gives a "What A$$ said" as his only retort.

Drugs is not a civil right and no it is not the pursuit of happiness either. If it is, then I do not want you to ever complain about "Big Pharma" again. I mean they are only doing what makes them happy and that is buying big yachts with your money. I also don't want to hear the crap that weed helps with this and that. I could bet a good solid dollar that very few people picked up smoking weed after they found out they had glacoma in high school. Point is, no one was born doing drugs, it has been illegal in all our lifetimes so by the very definition, you should have never started in the first place. Obviously access did lead to usage because if you never were around it, then you never would have started and that goes with anyone. The reality is you will have access but don't make arguments that being around it does not lead to others using it because everyone on this board that has done it is because they had access. None of them set out saying they were going to start using drugs when they were 10 years old but now they do.

Regardless of "it is a right" John, it is illegal. Not judging because I have done my share of crap in life, but why would you risk forfeiting your other rights in the name of what? An idea based on addiction? It must be an addiction if you are risking going to jail. Or is that a made up stat that people are rotting in jail for weed use? I am not sure which side of the fence you are going for?
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-27-2011, 8:26 AM Reply   
Actually it is a pursuit of happiness from above just not from the constitution argument.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-27-2011, 8:51 AM Reply   
Delta, my argument has nothing to do with equating drug users with black people. It was specifically pointed at your assertion that if a law is already on the books then you have no leg to stand on for opposing it. That is total nonsense.

I also can't figure out what you mean.. if drugs are a civil right then you don't want to hear a complaint about Big Pharma. Once again a statement that is total nonsense. I'm in favor of letting the market regulate itself. Which means that the govt doesn't grant exclusive rights to people who can afford to buy our politicians.

Laws are not created by God. There is no reason to assume that laws are morally correct because they already exist. Which seems to be the crux of your argument. Whether or not someone is breaking the law is not relevant to opposing the law. Every claim you make is simply stupid. For example... "it must be an addiction if you are risking going to jail for it". People risk going to jail for all kinds of things that addiction isn't even a remote consideration.
Old    Taylor Jensen (wakeboardertj)      Join Date: May 2005       10-27-2011, 9:42 AM Reply   
The feds change in stance is ridiculous. They are simply giving more business to the cartels in the mean time Big Pharma is going to make its big push for Sativex, the spray form of THC. Big Pharma saw the millions that Cali was making and wants a piece of it with an inferior product. You can't generalize the various expressions of psychoactive cannabinoids throughout hundreds of strains into one spray form and expect people to get the same amount of relief. One straincan provide imense relief for migraines and another can make it 2x worse . Feds need to GTFO and let us grow our own meds in peace while our own state officials regulate the commercial operations sprouting up everywhere under the front of growing legally for mass profit.

The only silver lining in this is hopefully a majority vote on the next california proposition and make a push to get the marijuana industry out from under the feet of the cartels.

Last edited by wakeboardertj; 10-27-2011 at 9:44 AM.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       10-27-2011, 9:43 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
I guess you are the smartest person in the room after all John. Nice to know you have such special friends like Cory to back you up. Even less of a independent thinker. He gives a "What A$$ said" as his only retort.
I meant in regards to the first statement, not the personal stab. Look at what I've posted in this thread and others on similar topics (liberty, taxes, government, etc.). Also, I don't know John but I do recall (vaguely) from reading some of his posts in other threads that he seems to have similar views in respecting individual liberty and natural rights, the things this country was founded on.

Regardless, you cannot assume that because a law exists that it is right, or moral, or not a violation of one's natural rights. I take it you don't believe a man has any rights simply by existing, you seem to believe that man has no rights except those granted to him by the government he lives under. We do not live under such a system and it most certainly would not be a good thing. In our system which recognizes natural rights (at least on paper, papers that are now ignored) there cannot be a crime unless there is a victim. Using recreational drugs is not a crime since there is no victim. The State is most certainly wrong for making it illegal
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-28-2011, 6:06 AM Reply   
Thanks for clarifying Cory.

Look I believe in rights but we also are not a free society. Does not matter what you believe though because we are not a free society and there pretty much no such thing as a free society on the planet earth. If you believe we are free then look no further than seatbelt laws. The problem is when you have taxation, you at that point stop being free. You are now in a closed system with inputs both positive and negative. I was trying to research how much they think it costs for addiction industry alone. One article I found states: "The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) estimates that a combined $276 billion was spent or lost in 2005 on health care, lost productivity, premature death, auto accidents and crime relating to drug and alcohol abuse. Approximately three-quarters of that money came from public sources, it found. About $18 billion of the tab went for treatment, even though fewer than 15% of the estimated 22 million Americans who engage in substance abuse actually seek treatment." Just like seatbelts, they found it was costing too much money for people to not wear them, thus you lost your freedom to not wear your seatbelt. Well, it cost significant money for rehab of individuals so you will never be absolutely free to use drugs. That is just the way it is.

As far as the use of drugs and no victim angle. There are plenty of victims in drug use. We can go into that at a different time.

Regardless if drug use should have been legal or not is not the argument. The argument is they are illegal and have been for as long as we have been alive but people have made the choice to pursue them regardless of the argued stiff penalties. That tells me they must be pretty powerful if you are willing to risk health and jail for said drugs. Regardless of your own personal regard, you have also chose to do illegal acts. How about change the law and then do them instead of creating human travesty in the name of your pleasure. The law did not create this, drug users caused this. Unfortunately the number of people who are willing to continue using knowing this is happening to other humans and the disregard for your freedom kind of proves the point that recreational drugs are that powerful.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-28-2011, 9:29 AM Reply   
^I fail to see your point. Millions of people choose to speed, which is an illegal activity and has been illegal as long as we have been alive, does that mean that "speeding is that powerful"? Speeding causes more than it's fair share of human travesty.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-28-2011, 10:17 AM Reply   
I remember when I owned rice burners speeding was pretty addictive. And how about those OWS'ers being addicted to wanting a job.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-29-2011, 2:04 AM Reply   
Speeding? really? I know speeding can be fun. I bet you a dollar is the state said if we catch you speeding that you will do 5 to 10 years in jail, you will not even come within 10 mph of the speed limit and may not even choose to drive ever if that was the penalty. I don't think it is that powerful of an item under that condition.

How about OWS quit using their Iphones to bitch about not having a job. Of course we know the poorest of the poor at OWS are regular Haitians on the poor scale right.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-29-2011, 8:34 AM Reply   
You just don't know how fast I went.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-29-2011, 8:36 AM Reply   
^How come when the Teabaggers were protesting about the stimulus package and the Wall Street bailout, you had no problem with that? Now a different group is bitching about the Bailout, and they are condemned. Is hypocrisy a core value of the Tea Party?
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-29-2011, 11:37 PM Reply   
Ha...I hear ya John.

Jeremy. I don't really care about the spoiled little OWS people. I was only commenting about John's comment. I don't belong to the Tea Party so I really don't know everything they complained about to be honest with you. Did anyone make posts about the Tea Party rallies? Matter of fact, were the Tea Party complaining about capitalism by texting on their Iphones? From what I am gathering, the OWS people are not complaining about bailouts as a main issue. They are bitching about everything in general. They have all sorts mixed people. I don't remember the Tea Party people doing illegal demonstrations and hitting the police with objects and taking over public property for their own use? Why is it every time a democrat supported protest comes up, there are plenty of arrests have to be made at them. I don't really remember the Tea Party riots?
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-30-2011, 10:15 PM Reply   
I'm in the Tea Party but we largely focus on local issues and all of the protests I have attended were legal and without incident. As a Tea Partier, I have no problem with the current protests but IMHO feel they are directing their energy to the wrong place. Wall Street is not the blame for the high unemployment rate or the financial melt down, and from what I've read, some of the protestors haven't obtained the proper paperwork to demonstrate in some states, so they are violating the law, frustrated, and have become confrontational. That's never a good situation. What's even more alarming is the media and some politicans turning this in to class warfare. The US government has plenty of money if it were properly spent. It's not the 1 percent's fault that we are in this mess. So, Jeremy, to answer your question "Is hypocrisy a core value of the Tea Party? " I hope not. Personally, I just want to know where the tax money is going. I want to see spreadsheets and who voted for what, and if that makes me a bigot, predijuice, hypotrical, or the other many names I have been called, so be it.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:25 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us