Why Are So Many Still Against Hemp / Marijuana ?

[steveh_131]

However, that one argument used to justify one may be similar to the other, doesn't prove anything about the similarity of consequences.

I disagree... all of the arguments against both are all about the consequences. That's what I'm asking for. What consequence would we see with drug legalization that we didn't see with alcohol legalization?

Since there are literally zero provided, I rest my case that there would be no additional consequences to draw away from all of the benefits.

I probably did. But it didn't matter so much who it was directed at. I just hate the term. I think it's horribly condescending.

Well, sometimes condescension happens. I'm guilty of it in this case, but I certainly wasn't the only one utilizing it in this thread.

I think there is room for "it depends" among a well informed populace who respects rule of law and personal freedom. I do recognize that "it depends" can be dangerous in an uninformed populace. I think IoF meshes with my philosophy 95% of the time. But I reserve the right to believe that last 5% is within the purview of the people to say, "it depends".

Fair enough, but this is where I am honestly saying that pragmatism tips the scale for me. When you give the populace that last 5%, they abuse the **** out of it until the government is... well, like it is today.

Which is why I think the more pragmatic approach is not to give them that 5%, knowing that they'll stretch it to 90%.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[steveh_131]

Roseanne Barr is a believer

Look at this crap, jamil. You honestly gonna tell me this sort of red herring isn't deserving of some condescension? lol

 

[D-Ric902]

Look at this crap, jamil. You honestly gonna tell me this sort of red herring isn't deserving of some condescension? lol

Roseanne Barr is condescending?

cause I just quoted her, no red herring.

she is on your side

 

[jamil]

The "Roseanne" star, who wants to legalize marijuana, also said the drug can release us from "mind control."

"It's a good medicine, you know," she told the Daily Beast at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City. "It's expansive. It opens your mind. You're like...Wow, you’re in awe. You look up into the stars. It makes you wonder. It doesn’t close that down"



Roseanne Barr is a believer

Well, honestly that doesn't sway the argument. I imagine that if the other side spent the time they could find an "interesting" person to represent your view. Legalization is either a better solution for society or it isn't, regardless of which nutballs or with what frequency you might find on either side. If nuttiness factored into rightness, we may lose the gun control argument.

 

[D-Ric902]

Well, honestly that doesn't sway the argument. I imagine that if the other side spent the time they could find an "interesting" person to represent your view. Legalization is either a better solution for society or it isn't, regardless of which nutballs or with what frequency you might find on either side. If nuttiness factored into rightness, we may lose the gun control argument.

your right
Ted Nugent I think is against legalization, and is certainly a nut

if your going to advocate a position, you better have thick skin.
Sarcasm in many cases is just the truth taken to extremes. Laugh at it because the truth is usually somewhere in between.
If you would read all of my posts you would see that I have stated that MJ may have benefits. But I don't advocate legalization while it is being studied. The last part of the post steveh_131 half ignored

if this is the position that steveh_131 wants to take, understand that many loonies will take the same position (Barr, Obama, etc, etc)
I have no doubt there are nutcases on both sides. Deal with it, don't get all butthurt.

(besides, Jamil, you are the Sith Lord of sarcasm)

 

[steveh_131]

I have no doubt there are nutcases on both sides. Deal with it, don't get all butthurt.

Why would I be butthurt? It was your illogical argument that a 'nutcase' on your side carries some sort of significance.

I was just pointing out the stupidity of such an argument.

 

[jamil]

Fair enough, but this is where I am honestly saying that pragmatism tips the scale for me. When you give the populace that last 5%, they abuse the **** out of it until the government is... well, like it is today.

Which is why I think the more pragmatic approach is not to give them that 5%, knowing that they'll stretch it to 90%.

Hope that makes sense.

We've been around and around this topic. You just can't get anywhere near where you want to be from where we are. Even if, say, some natural disaster caused this government to cease to exist, and we just had to start over, you still have to get everyone else who's left to agree to your way. It would probably be a more contentious negotiation than this thread. There are probably vastly more "it depends" kinds of people than not.

 

[D-Ric902]

We've been around and around this topic. You just can't get anywhere near where you want to be from where we are. Even if, say, some natural disaster caused this government to cease to exist, and we just had to start over, you still have to get everyone else who's left to agree to your way. It would probably be a more contentious negotiation than this thread. There are probably vastly more "it depends" kinds of people than not.

got to spread some rep around before giving it to Jamil again

 

[D-Ric902]

Why would I be butthurt? It was your illogical argument that a 'nutcase' on your side carries some sort of significance.

I was just pointing out the stupidity of such an argument.

if your gonna read one line....

its not not worth the time
enjoy your world
I tried

 

[jamil]

I think you guys are taking each other too seriously. I have to admit that earlier I was as well.

 

[D-Ric902]

I think you guys are taking each other too seriously. I have to admit that earlier I was as well.

Don't take much at all seriously

wow, I made Jamil's sig line.

I am big time now

 

[steveh_131]

We've been around and around this topic. You just can't get anywhere near where you want to be from where we are. Even if, say, some natural disaster caused this government to cease to exist, and we just had to start over, you still have to get everyone else who's left to agree to your way. It would probably be a more contentious negotiation than this thread. There are probably vastly more "it depends" kinds of people than not.

You're right, and I don't expect to be able to talk many people into it. But if more people think this way and vote this way, I think our nation will be a better place.

I think you guys are taking each other too seriously. I have to admit that earlier I was as well.

Probably true. I can't tell if his recent antics are trolling or for real. I think I could have more fulfilling political discussions with my 4-year old daughter.

 

[D-Ric902]

Probably true. I can't tell if his recent antics are trolling or for real. I think I could have more fulfilling political discussions with my 4-year old daughter.

Yup, no condecention there

 

[steveh_131]

Yup, no condecention there

Hey, I already pled guilty to that one! Might as well own it right?

 

[rambone]

Should we look the other way when people say "it depends" regarding following the constitution? Give them a pat on the back when they only disregard a few choice clauses and amendments?

 

[Ericpwp]

Just when

 

[Ericpwp]

 

[Ericpwp]

thx

 

[Hawkeye]

WOW! I can't believe this thread is still going. Where is the loctite?

 

[jamil]

Should we look the other way when people say "it depends" regarding following the constitution? Give them a pat on the back when they only disregard a few choice clauses and amendments?

No. Obviously we should harshly, publicly, ridicule them just before we pour hot tar over their heads, plunge a knife into their chests, and set them on fire. Because those are the ONLY two possibilities.