Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
How is it you keep misinterpreting "decriminalization" into me advocating "banning" something? Into me saying I want to "restrict" something? Are you certain you understand what "decriminalize" means? Just to refresh your memory, old man... here is what you originally posted in this thread:
Now how the fuck is THAT opinion vastly different than me saying, we ought to decriminalize weed????? Goddamn if I don't think it's the same thing you said! We even used the same word... DECRIMINALIZE! Is that somehow not translating on your end? Maybe you have some kind of bug in your script here? I keep saying this, and you keep acting like I want to ban stuff and keep pot illegal! To "decriminalize" means to make it NOT illegal! Is that clear to you, or should I post it another 20 times?
My argument is against the commercial sale and distribution of pot as a product on the market! Something you originally admitted, wasn't going to happen! I presented a valid argument on why I don't think it is prudent for our government to do this, and your retort was, that I was advocating a "nanny state" and we didn't need that. But we already have that! Strychnine is a poison, it can't be just sold on the market like bug spray! WHY? Is government being our "nanny" and not allowing us the freedom to kill ourselves? Perhaps, just perhaps, it's because government has a responsibility to protect the general welfare of the public!
When you attempt to stop the equivalent of a liquor store it is not the same thing as decriminalization. That's just inane sophistry in an attempt to justify your nannyism.
As for the stuff about Obama, it is literally a list of what he can do as the President. He cannot make law.
Don't be so deliberately obtuse. It isn't becoming. People on a messageboard about politics should fully understand the limits of power for each branch of government.
No matter how you try to dress this up, it is still nannyism. "I do it for your own good" crappy law.
Set an age limit and let people destroy themselves if they must. Regulate when and where it can be made so that people stop blowing their neighborhoods up, let people destroy their own lives if they wish, it's time to stop letting them destroy others so that they can do it illegally.
Instead you attempt to make a stupid law that allows anybody to keep it so long as there is no store. Kids not only would be able to easily obtain it from friends at school, it would be sanctioned by your stupidity. You couldn't bust the kid for having it, he doesn't own a store. Like when prohibition was around, when the criminals are the regulatory agency then no regulation at all matters.
You go off half-cocked hoping nobody notices that you are trying "for their own good' to make a law that sounds noble but in practice is idiocy and ensures that nobody at all responsible is between the school and the drug.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I am not "attempting to stop" any damn thing! Last I checked, we don't have Pot Stores! I advocate decriminalizing pot, so that our government can't take people's fucking property away for having a bag of pot in their house! The only thing I have advocated "stopping" is putting people in prison for possessing a fucking weed!
I understand (just like you) that Obama can't make law! And I also understand, 500 Congressmen aren't going to suddenly decide to legalize pot! There is a possibility they could agree to "decriminalize" pot, and stop the insanity of locking people up for weed! What you all seem to be asking for, is not possible, because of the reasons I pointed out. There are too many other issues involved, too many ramifications and negative health risks, and way too many Americans who would not favor complete unadulterated legalization and commercialization of the marijuana industry.
They ask for what I think is right, I supply my opinion.
You do too, using the most noble "For their own good" you want to make laws.. "For their own good" you would make more nanny laws that do nothing at all.
We don't need you to try to be our parents, we don't need government to do that at all. I don't give a crap if somebody chooses to purchase an item, like cigarettes or beer, that can harm their health. It's their own body.
BTW - Your idea would be equivalent to legalizing it with zero regulation or even tax benefit.
We can't make sure people are looking for IDs because there can be no storefront. We can't bust people for carrying it, because that's not illegal. Talk about stupid laws. At least my way would actually make it more difficult for kids to get it.
KingCondanomation
New member
Ironically, Obama has been dead silent on Israel. I would have thought like any modern PC politician he could've mustered at least a useless "Both sides need to urgently return to the peace process", but not a peep.
My personal opinion is that he's been told by his advisers that he can hold the most support by not saying anything at all and let his many followers who are on different sides on this, assume that he is more sympathetic with them, as many do of any new unknown leader.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Not once have I said "for their own good" Damo, that is your interpretation of what I have said. I am also not advocating the passage of ANY law, just a striking down of current criminal laws. What I support actually gives you MORE freedom, not LESS! When you start screaming "we don't need you to try to be our parents" you sound just like the pinhead liberals on this board, you realize this, right? I'm not trying to be your parent, if I were, I would be advocating that we enforce current laws more strictly! That's clearly NOT what I have said here, is it?
I don't care if adults purchase beer and cigarettes, they are legal industries in this country, pot is not. Cocaine, heroin, morphine, and opium, are also not legal industries in America, and I hope we will keep it that way. Not because I want to tell you what to do, but because the ramifications will cost me tax dollars in dependency treatment programs and healthcare for those who turned themselves into vegetables abusing drugs.
My idea would be the equivalent of making it not illegal to possess pot or grow it for personal use, providing you are a legal consenting adult. It would not allow you to operate motor vehicles under the influence of pot, and it would make it no more "easy" for kids to get, than it currently is! Hell, most of it is now being grown by kids! If anything, my suggestion keeps little Billy from being turned into a felon before he reaches age 20!
We can't make sure people are looking for IDs because there can be no storefront. We can't bust people for carrying it, because that's not illegal.
Sounds to me like, YOU are the one who wants to control and restrict people's freedoms! You want to make it legal so you can then control it and decide who gets to use it and how much they can charge for it, and take your little cut of the action in the process... YOU are the fucking Nanny!
laws 'for your own good' are passed by people that do not want you to do something that they do not do and think that others should not - they are control freaks that think they know best - they limit individual freedom to choose
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Yeah? Like laws restricting greenhouse gases and laws mandating universal health care? These laws are "for our own good" are they not? It's nice that you admit you really are a control freak, but I have not proposed passing ANY law in this thread.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It's not for YOUR good Dixfuck. You don't fucking matter you insignifigant prick. You don't have a right to MURDER MY CHILDREN because you WANT TO SPEND A LITTLE LESS ON GAS YOU SICK, EVIL, FUCK! I WISH THERE WERE A HELL SO THAT EVIL PEOPLE LIKE YOU COULD BURN IN IT!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
:lmao:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
If they have the duty to protect us from harm why aren't they throwing tobacco farmers in prison and executing cigerette company executives for being mass murders as both sell the most dangerous drug in the word that kills nearly half a million US citizens a year.
KingCondanomation
New member
It's a little early in the year to try and take the emo post of 2009 Water.
Yes you did. You started off on how bad it was for people, therefore you can't let others sell it. It's a "for their own good" law.
You work to justify your inner liberal. Making laws to save people from their own selves by "limiting" access in a way that doesn't do what you intend, that in fact makes it worse. Yeah, that is the very definition of nannyism.
There is a time frame that we set in this society that we then allow people to make such choices, for alcohol and other items it is 21. You are pretending you are incapable of understanding this so you can continue to justify feeding your inner liberal with inane laws based on how much you know better than others.
"This is okay, so long as we don't let people sell it to them." It's just flat out idiocy and does nothing to limit it as you want. It simply ensures an even larger and more violent black market.
Dayum straight they are.
And some of the worst violators are those who would rail against a helmet law because of a limit to their freedoms.
If Dixie's use of MJ was detrimental to the health of others directly, there would be a reason to make a law. Like the laws that limit your driving privileges when using liquor or other drugs. However, pretending that "no storefront" would fix anything at all, is preposterous.
Some of the MA cops are still issuing a summons to court for getting caught with less then an ounce even tho the law is now a $100 ticket. They are giving u a traffic ticket with "Other" Checked and summons to court with a $100 fine. Totally disregards the whole point of the law to lower the strain on the court systems.
C
Cancel1
Guest
There is the Clinton Czar......