Pot laws are the next great Civil Rights issue

RStringfield said:
Left out the women this time? You're a commie twerp that can't get laid and blames it on foreigners.
Click to expand...


Still. The very concept of a nation is a collective survival mechanism for the citizens. AKA, citizens get something out of it, instead of just existing as taxpayers and consumers, as the military industrial complex seeks to frame them in our corrupt society.
 
AssHatZombie said:
The whole point of a nation and citizenship, is having first access to resources and opportunities within the nation's borders.
Click to expand...
You are speaking of these things like they are limited, does anyone believe that a foreign investor who decides to buy, sell or invest here has ONLY limited anyone's resources or oppurtunities? They could just as easily have expanded them.
 
KingCondanomation said:
You are speaking of these things like they are limited, does anyone believe that a foreign investor who decides to buy, sell or invest here has ONLY limited anyone's resources or oppurtunities? They could just as easily have expanded them.
Click to expand...

In that case their actions should be allowed, but when they are harmful, their actions should be curtailed, according to the benefit of the citizens.
 
AssHatZombie said:
In that case their actions should be allowed, but when they are harmful, their actions should be curtailed, according to the benefit of the citizens.
Click to expand...
What if their actions are both? If I buy cheap goods from China, perhaps some manufacturing jobs are lost here but with the greater purchasing power I have, but consumers benefit and so would the service industry to some degree as that extra purchasing power could be used for non-good purchases.

The important part to add to that is that in curtailing any activities, those countries can also curtail our activities in their markets.
So overall you have a negative and this is why free markets and free trade are now endorsed by so many in the last generation. There are more than enough experiments with trade restrictions and embargos in the 20th century to know we are not better off with them in place.
 
evince said:
Heres a question for you tainwallow, which of these things are actually illegal in our present laws?

Why is it you are hating on liberals for taxing tobacco (its not just liberals who tax it BTW) yet you are capping pn us for wanting pot legalized and taxed?

More people die from tabbaco than from pot yet we are the ones you call names?

BTW I think you better look up the word Fascist.
Click to expand...

Don't you ever tire of spreading lies ?

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html

Marijuana smoke and cigarette smoke contain many of the same toxins, including one which has been identified as a key factor in the promotion of lung cancer. This toxin is found in the tar phase of both, and it should be noted that one joint has four times more tar than a cigarette, which means that the lungs are exposed four-fold to this toxin and others in the tar. It has been concretely established that smoking cigarettes promotes lung cancer (which causes more than 125,000 deaths in the US every year), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis and emphysema) and increased incidence of respiratory tract infections. This implies, but does not establish, that smoking marijuana may lead to some of the same results as smoking cigarettes. It is notable that several reports indicate an unexpectedly large proportion of marijuana users among cases of lung cancer and cancers of the oral cavity,pharynx, and larynx. Thus, it appears that the use of marijuana as a medicine has the potential to further harm an already ill patient in the same way that taking up regular cigarette smoking would, particularly in light of the fact that those patients for whom marijuana is recommended are already poorly equipped to fight off these infections and diseases.

For more information, please see the Tashkin website mentioned at the end of the section on immune disorders. See also:

* www.sarnia.com/GROUPS/ANTIDRUG/mrr/ 21.96.10.html, for information on the link between chemicals contained in marijuana and lung cancer.
 
KingCondanomation said:
What if their actions are both? If I buy cheap goods from China, perhaps some manufacturing jobs are lost here but with the greater purchasing power I have, but consumers benefit and so would the service industry to some degree as that extra purchasing power could be used for non-good purchases.

The important part to add to that is that in curtailing any activities, those countries can also curtail our activities in their markets.
So overall you have a negative and this is why free markets and free trade are now endorsed by so many in the last generation. There are more than enough experiments with trade restrictions and embargos in the 20th century to know we are not better off with them in place.
Click to expand...

I believe a net result can be computed. For instance, losing all production capacity and domestic employment is more damaging the gains realized from cheap useless crap.

The lies of Globalization are how corporations use governements to form society in their interests.

The lies of globalization allow the greed of legislators even more sway, as they consider policy in light of what foreign fascists want instead of what benefits the citizenry.
 
ib1yysguy said:
What frustrates me most about pot laws is the fact that if you're caught they totally do whatever they can to fuck up the rest of your life for that mistake. For instance, after three possession convictions you become indefinitely ineligible for federal aid to complete school. How the hell is that a productive law? If a pot head wants to finish school so he can become a productive member of society, how is preventing him from doing that going to help anyone?

There are a million examples like this. It's not as important or relevant to my life as rights for homosexuals, but it's still an important issue that ill be resolved within my lifetime I'm sure.
Click to expand...

LOL. Okay. Wow congratulations on caring more that two faggots can't force everyone to accept that they're married than you do about the largest and most egregious violation of our civil liberties since internment.
 
1by is on another planet. He'd rather force recognition of gay marriage than end the systematic and racist incarceration of America's youth.
 
I agree both are problems,
1 is little more than symantics and employee benefits,
the other could be the biggest civil rights issue going.
 
Topspin said:
I agree both are problems,
1 is little more than symantics and employee benefits,
the other could be the biggest civil rights issue going.
Click to expand...

the 'other' is not a civil rights issue. It's an abuse of congressional power, the worst atrocity of all. get with the program and rein in your federal government.
 
I'll even accept that gay marriage is a valid issue to some, but how you could even begin to compare the two with a straight face is beyond me. It would be like whining about flag-burning during the Holocaust.

Absolutely beyond comprehension to me, but I have to constantly remind myself that you people do not have the hands-on experience with the Drug War that I have. You have not seen the lives ruined, homes seized, jobs lost, innocent people killed that the Drug War brings, and as such your opinions about it are understandably distant and uninformed.
 
Epicurus said:
I'll even accept that gay marriage is a valid issue to some, but how you could even begin to compare the two with a straight face is beyond me. It would be like whining about flag-burning during the Holocaust.

Absolutely beyond comprehension to me, but I have to constantly remind myself that you people do not have the hands-on experience with the Drug War that I have. You have not seen the lives ruined, homes seized, jobs lost, innocent people killed that the Drug War brings, and as such your opinions about it are understandably distant and uninformed.
Click to expand...

is that a racist thing? because I can assure you, that with all the study and reading i've done about commerce clause abuse, drug war, and militarization of police, i'm as much up on it as you are.
 
The drug war is an example of federal regulation run wild and trampling over states rights. It's effectively, legislating through bureaucracy. Whether the left likes it or not, it is a model of government they have championed in action.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
is that a racist thing? because I can assure you, that with all the study and reading i've done about commerce clause abuse, drug war, and militarization of police, i'm as much up on it as you are.
Click to expand...

I'm not addressing you, bac, top, RS, or cawacko. I know that you guys are well-aware of the problems of the situation even if you don't possess firsthand experience. My last post was more directed at "liberals" like 1by, Cypress, and Jarod who pretend to care about the issue even as they perpetuate the status quo.

Btw, I'm white. My avatar is Lil Wayne. I spent a lot of time in rough neighborhoods growing up so I experienced a lot of the consequences of the Drug War firsthand. It's not a black or white thing.
 
Civil rights are commonly defined as rights guaranteed under the 13th and 14th amendments. Usually they deal with equal treatment under the law. While there are obviously some civil rights issues in the drug war, the drug war is not necessarily a civil rights issue.
 
Epicurus said:
I'm not addressing you, bac, top, RS, or cawacko. I know that you guys are well-aware of the problems of the situation even if you don't possess firsthand experience. My last post was more directed at "liberals" like 1by, Cypress, and Jarod who pretend to care about the issue even as they perpetuate the status quo.

Btw, I'm white. My avatar is Lil Wayne. I spent a lot of time in rough neighborhoods growing up so I experienced a lot of the consequences of the Drug War firsthand. It's not a black or white thing.
Click to expand...

k, we're all good. :cool:
 
The only thing I see Liberals doing when it comes to the drug war is to try and expand it to tobacco, which they are already doing.
When it comes to championing any freedom, they seem largely interested in doing it only if they believe it will piss off some social Conservatives (ie: prostitution, porn, etc...) Once that allure is gone, they revert to their natural position of being against those freedoms so long as they are free market and not involving much government.

Look at their arguments on tobacco, they keep bringing up evil tobacco corporations - if pot was legal and there was then evil profit making pot corporations would they still be for legal pot?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
for one, yes. It's not difficult to tell if we're being invaded and I damn sure know a hell of alot more about the constitution than most folks.....including the last 90 years of supreme court justices. I would almost gather that you know more about it than those justices as well.......unless you bow down to the oligarchy.
Click to expand...

STY, meet AssHat. You two are a match made in heaven. Now don't go anywhere. Some very nice men in white coats will be coming to visit you shortly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top