Why Are So Many Still Against Hemp / Marijuana ?

[AA&E]

Who said they didnt?

Who are you arguing with?

Maybe he is arguing with himself again, as he was earlier when he linked to an article that refuted the point he was trying to make...

that contact high is brutal...

 

[D-Ric902]

Maybe he is arguing with himself again, as he was earlier when he linked to an article that refuted the point he was trying to make...

that contact high is brutal...

Oh man,
you figured out my secret

read what you like, ignore what you don't
remark about a word, phrase, ar punctuation and not address the point

oh wait, that's your secret tactic

you admit that the elected representative legislature writes the laws
but dismiss the concept when they write a law you don't like, take them to task for violating the (first 10 amendments of) the constitution as interpreted by you alone in direct contradiction to how the judicial branch has ruled on the same issues.

prefecty understandable
You want to follow the laws you like and excoriate anyone who disagrees with you about a law that you don't.

Pretty Simple

 

[jamil]

I believe that I am being quite pragmatic, actually. Here's reality: We already live in Doug's ideal world. He wants to draw his line at 75% risky, while others are drawing theirs at 60% risky. "Come on, guys" he says, "Marijuana isn't THAT risky! Let's legalize it!" What does this accomplish? It accomplishes the exact status quo. Everybody pushing for their favorite 'risky' activity to be legal. Conservatives want guns, liberals want pot. Conservatives want economic freedom, liberals want marital freedom. It's a never-ending tug-of-war. And the constant compromise has consistently tugged us away from liberty for a very, very long time.

I have a different idea. Let's forget 'risk analysis'. Let's never base criminal laws on it again. And my reasons are perfectly pragmatic: It fails to provide any significant security, and succeeds at stripping away our liberty.

I've tackled many examples in threads on INGO. Traffic laws, prohibition, gun control; none of these actually promote our safety as they are intended. They have, however, resulted in many instances of tyranny.



You probably find him pragmatic and reasonable because his views are not really libertarian

So you're saying one can't be pragmatic and reasoning AND be a libertarian.

Understood.

 

[D-Ric902]

So you're saying one can't be pragmatic and reasoning AND be a libertarian.

Understood.

From what we have seen in this thread.......few and far between

 

[D-Ric902]

From what we have seen in this thread.......few and far between

(Let's try bait)

I have little patience for either crackpot fringe, left or right.

the right are wearing the tinfoil and burying all kind of stuff in the backyard (ammo, trucks, howitzers) and looking for drones over their house (the black helicopters are obsolete) hunkering down trying to find aluminum siding. I have actually heard it lectured/preached that the shadow government can't see through aluminum siding so the banned it for vinyl.
and spout on the internet about how,their freedom is being ripped from them (they read the bill of rights, that's as far as they want to go)

the left fringe is hugging trees and crying over meat markets and the killing of "Gaia" by the evil corporations (Monsanto)

But interestingly they both have the same Argumentum ad Hitlerum for anyone outside their clique


(see who bites)

 

[steveh_131]

you admit that the elected representative legislature writes the laws
but dismiss the concept when they write a law you don't like, take them to task for violating the (first 10 amendments of) the constitution as interpreted by you alone in direct contradiction to how the judicial branch has ruled on the same issues.

Are you saying that my acknowledgment of the functioning of our system precludes me from commenting on representatives who make poor decisions?

I disagree.

So you're saying one can't be pragmatic and reasoning AND be a libertarian.

Understood.

No, that part was a joke about libertarians. Don't get hung up on that and miss the rest of what I was trying to say.

 

[D-Ric902]

Maybe he is arguing with himself again, as he was earlier when he linked to an article that refuted the point he was trying to make...

that contact high is brutal...

google fu has lasting affects huh

 

[jamil]

Are you saying that my acknowledgment of the functioning of our system precludes me from commenting on representatives who make poor decisions?

I disagree.



No, that part was a joke about libertarians. Don't get hung up on that and miss the rest of what I was trying to say.

Now I was just returning the favor. I didn't miss what you said. I just didn't think I could respond to that without saying saying more than I have time to write. I'll just say it would have started out with, "Mnnn, I don't think you're all that pragmatic..."

 

[steveh_131]

Now I was just returning the favor. I didn't miss what you said. I just didn't think I could respond to that without saying saying more than I have time to write. I'll just say it would have started out with, "Mnnn, I don't think you're all that pragmatic..."

statist

 

[AA&E]

(Let's try bait)

I have little patience for either crackpot fringe, left or right.

There is never a mirror around when you need one.

I am surprised anyone bother debate this with you. You've been caught making up lies to justify your stance (contact high sitting in traffic), didn't understand a reference that is synonymous with the hysteria level thinking associated with your mindset (reefer madness), and have linked to articles you obviously haven't read.

 

[D-Ric902]

AA&E;


You should start looking at the SN of the people you are excoriating

getting high in traffic was not me (go back and look)

refer madness was not me (go back and look again)

as as far as the articles and links, I will say one last time, it was not about the links it was about debating polls ad infinitum on both sides.
it's easy to find polls that say whatever you want on either side.
(Last time I will point this out, if your allergic to Google fu it's not my problem)

read before you insult
before you accuse me of lying, make sure your not making an idiot of yourself

dont bother with an apology, I don't expect one

 

[D-Ric902]

Jeez,
on another thread I'm accused of being pro-pot.

look at the screen names people

I know now we all look alike to some but no one else has my avatar

(apologies accepted all around, don't send them)

 

[Ericpwp]

Memory is not a strong suit.

 

[D-Ric902]

Memory is not a strong suit.

this is not me

i am not responsible for the content of that post

 

[Ericpwp]

You've been caught making up lies to justify your stance (contact high sitting in traffic), didn't understand a reference that is synonymous with the hysteria level thinking associated with your mindset (reefer madness), and have linked to articles you obviously haven't read.

Yes, it was me. It surprises me that you could not remember who's who. Yes you "caught" me. You were there. I really hope you do something productive today. (This does not count.)

 

[Ericpwp]

Oh, and this:
U.S. judge won't remove marijuana from most-dangerous drug list - LA Times

 

[D-Ric902]

Yes, it was me. It surprises me that you could not remember who's who. Yes you "caught" me. You were there. I really hope you do something productive today. (This does not count.)

This also
is not me.


​I'm gonna have to change my sig line

 

[steveh_131]

In fairness, you guys have a pretty similar stream of logical fallacies and misinformation on this topic. I can't blame him for confusing you.

 

[Ericpwp]

Its not like it isn't written down somewhere. When you are calling somebody out, you should be sure you know who you're talking to.

 

[AA&E]

AA&E;

dont bother with an apology, I don't expect one

You will not be disappointed.