I know your momma tells you that. She also thinks you're special even though the other kids make fun of you.You wish. I'm #1.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Ok, Damo. That's enough. You can stop trying now.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Translation: Im damo. Im totally lame.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Still talking to yourself I see. Are you getting help with that issue?
Almost good. Almost.
Dang. You really have lost a step. It's okay though. Your mom still thinks you are special. You can sleep well tonight.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
You already tried that mom thing. That's pathetic, man. You reused bad material from two posts ago.
Translation:
I still don't have anything to say to him that I can come up with on my own. I'll keep trying to say the same thing he does and see if anyone notices.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
I busted you reusing bad material from a few posts ago.
I was just reiterating what you had no answer for the first time that you had thought you got past with something that was "almost good".
It really is okay, I fully understand you aren't really into it today and getting even sorrier with each, "But, but, butchyoo said!" post...
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
There really is no "answer" to yer momma jokes.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Damo, with all due respect, you need to take a break, you are sounding like usidiot now. No, I don't see... what I see is that you posted that I had "inferred" something, and I pointed out that I didn't "infer" anything.
I didn't "infer" anything, I simply stated that I don't think "violence" is a big huge problem in the marijuana biz! Even IF it is, even IF people are being gunned down in the streets of Miami over weed, it doesn't logically follow that decriminalization would result in any MORE violence! If anything, it would probably result in less... I don't know this, I can't prove it, but I can make this logical conclusion based on the fact that it wouldn't be a felony to possess it. The way I see it, decriminalization would hurt the "black market" because people wouldn't fear growing the weed themselves... it's a weed, it's not that hard to plant it and grow it if you want it, and you don't have to risk shady transactions with thugs who have guns! Again, I don't know this is how it would be, I can't prove it would be like this, but it is a reasonable conclusion.
You are not direct when you attack me and say that I am advocating "for your own good" laws, when I have not advocated ANY LAW AT ALL! You are not direct when you throw out examples of violence now, to prove decriminalization would create violence! And you are not direct when you call me a "liberal" because I don't subscribe to your notion that government should endorse shit that is bad for the public health!
It sickens me to see a sound-minded individual who generally makes a good argument, resort to pinhead tactics and ad hominem attacks to make his points.
It was a grammar lesson.
When speaking of yourself you "imply", when speaking of somebody else they "infer".
Unless you make it so the only source that can provide it is illegal. As your type of decriminalization does.
You advocated a law that would make it, for "their own good" (because it is bad for their health was your postulate), so that no store could sell the product. Thus doing a few things.
1. Making it so the only source for the "good" stuff are criminals who do not and will not sell responsibly.
2. Insuring that it remains a black market item.
3. Making it so the customer need not fear, only the seller thus increasing the need for protection, for the violent portion.
And lastly making it solely a silly nanny law. It wouldn't be making a victim of the purchaser any more than alcohol would. Shoot, MJ remained legal all through prohibition without destroying society, it was alcohol people shot each other over back then. Cocaine was also legal, and a notable ingredient in what would later become a popular soft drink.
It isn't an an ad hominem to point out how I feel watching a "conservative" try to justify nanny laws. It is simply a statement of truth. It only goes to prove the "two-heads one government" people right when "conservatives" are willing to do exactly what liberals do if they justify it enough. Either nanny laws are wrong, or we should shut up the next time some idiot tries to make a law making parents force helmets onto the heads of pre-schoolers when they ride their tricycles.
If we are going to decriminalize this, do it wisely. Make it more like alcohol and more difficult for the teens and children to gain access to it and give those who we believe are responsible for their lives the choice.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Dixie, we all see you directly contradicting yourself, so please just shut up. Damo has secured second place.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I neither "implied" nor "inferred" anything.
Not so, I clearly stated that growing it for personal use would not be against the law. That gives everyone a perfectly legitimate legal "source" for the substance.
I never advocated ANY FUCKING LAW DAMO! CAN YOU READ???
Not so, the "source" could also be your own personal pot garden!!!!!!
Since you could legally grow it yourself, the "black market" would be pointless!
No different than what we currently have! I am not "making" anything any way!
For the last goddamn time... I have NOT ADVOCATED ANY LAW! I have advocated removing a law! De-fucking-criminalization! Can you get that through your thick obtuse head Damo??????
Pointing to one bad product to support another, is not a valid argument in favor of it! To my knowledge, smoking pot has NEVER been sold over the counter in America as a product! NEVER!
It's ad hominem when you call me "liberal" and a "ninny" and continue to lie and distort my position. I have NOT ADVOCATED PASSING ANY SUCH NANNY LAW!!!!!! I DON'T CARE WHO SMOKES POT!
In other words, control it, and act as a NANNY to those who may want to partake? As I said before, it is YOU who wants to be the Nanny... but you also want to be the Nanny who is a Pimp, because you want to be able to make a buck off of it too! That's pretty disgusting Damo, it really is! Damo... The Pimp Nanny!
Again, what I proposed is legitimately possible and plausible. Decriminalize it, allow people who want to grow it and smoke it to do so in the privacy of their own homes and on their own property, and stop putting people in prison for possession of it. That is something we could probably do realistically, and it would actually give you more freedom and choice!
What you keep pushing for is not ever going to happen. The elected representatives of red state America are not about to vote for legalizing commercial distribution of pot! Ain't gonna happen, doesn't matter how much you have wet dreams about it, Damo! Churches and civic organizations would inundate Washington with petitions and protests, if something like that were ever suggested! It would be condemned by the American Lung Association, The American Cancer Society, MADD, DARE, SADD, and a host of other anti-drug advocacy groups, as well as countless physicians and health professionals! So... take another toke and fucking Dream On! You will never see a pack of joints on the shelf next to a pack of cigarettes, it is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN HERE!
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
But before you were against decriminilization.
C
Cancel1
Guest
Well, if it rains, I dont care
Dont make no difference to me
Just take that street car thats goin up town
Yeah, Id like to hear some funky dixieland
And dance a honky tonk
And Ill be buyin evrybody drinks all roun
Old black water, keep on rollin
Mississippi moon, wont you keep on shinin on me
Old black water, keep on rollin
Mississippi moon, wont you keep on shinin on me
Dont make no difference to me
Just take that street car thats goin up town
Yeah, Id like to hear some funky dixieland
And dance a honky tonk
And Ill be buyin evrybody drinks all roun
Old black water, keep on rollin
Mississippi moon, wont you keep on shinin on me
Old black water, keep on rollin
Mississippi moon, wont you keep on shinin on me
To Dixie... making a law that makes it so nobody can legally sell an item isn't making a law, mostly because he would have to admit it was solely for nannyism that he wanted to make the law to begin with.
Kids don't have the capacity to make the choices, let's make a law to keep them from victimization while allowing those who do have the capacity the freedom to destroy their own lives if they wish. Currently we have one that allows the criminals to have access to the kids easily, while nobody with responsible action in mind can do anything other than call the cops or add to the violence...
Maximum freedom while not allowing others to victimize other people is a good thing. Nannying into the silliest set of contrary laws is not.
Kids don't have the capacity to make the choices, let's make a law to keep them from victimization while allowing those who do have the capacity the freedom to destroy their own lives if they wish. Currently we have one that allows the criminals to have access to the kids easily, while nobody with responsible action in mind can do anything other than call the cops or add to the violence...
Maximum freedom while not allowing others to victimize other people is a good thing. Nannying into the silliest set of contrary laws is not.