USFREEDOM WTF IS THAT PICTURE IN YOUR SIG AND WHY IS IT BLAMING PEOPLE ON DRUGS

[Liberty]

i love how i can post a thread while tripping on a research chemical and it gets up to 170+ posts. no one else on this site could do that.

Well,,,,, you just went over 200.

 

[Phantasmal]

Indeed, they do! Here, for example, is an ass I'd like to mine:

Perfectly touched up! she is beautiful, I would think about doing her and Megan!

 

[Ohcapzag]

Who gets more jail time, a person possessing marijuana or a pedophile? Answer, the guy with the marijuana, it just sickens me!

Is that true?

 

[Timshel]

So let me get this straight.
You accused me of somethng and then when you have your nose rubbed in your own BS, that makes me the "spineless coward"!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Ask around (as I have been going over this point for years) I don't care about name calling. I never have. That's why I ignore yours. Ad homs annoy me because they are a barrier to proper thinking and logic.

I should not have said you name called and I, apparently, misremembered your ad hom as being also name calling. It's not relevant. Do you want a star for another one of your empty points?

I don't give a crap about your ego and chest beating nonsense. I am interested in the issue and the philsophical points. So take your little star and shove it up your ass.

The truth is not an "ad hom", when it's presented solely as the truth.
If I had added on "and they also support child molestation", then it would have been an ad hom.

It was pointed out to you over and over and over and over again, that your ad hom was not accurate. Plenty of people that advocate mj legalization do not use mj. Just as not all of those that advocate equality for homosexuals are gay (do you have a problem understanding that one too?).

AND many of us have been engaged in numerous forms of activism and advocacy for mj legalization. It is not just a handful of people that are crying because they got arrested.

Youir 5th paragraph is just you attempting to rehash matters that have already been addressed; but you just want to keep spewing over.

BULLSHIT!. You have addressed by saying, "someone said it, go look it up," yet you demand links from me which I have provided. You are a coward or a liar, I don't know which. Personally, I don't give a fuck if the facts show that I goofed up by saying "name calling." I screwed up, oh well. You are still full of shit on THE ACTUAL subject of debate and wrong on your ad homs.

And then; you continue to run from the question of what would happen to the black market, if mj users would stop using the black market, by literally going "la-la-la, won't happen".
You're conclusion is a pathetic attempt to once again avoid your responsibility.

I am not running from anything. You are running from reality which is proven by your stupid scenario. Any law passed will be broken. Then what? The costs of enforcement cannot be ignored or simply blamed on the perpetrator. With just and rational laws the costs of enforcement are acceptable because the damage caused by the ACTUAL crime is too high in comparison to the costs of enforcement. It is your stupid denial of reality that leads you to ignore the costs of the drug war and just blame it all on the drug user.

You are just whining about human nature.

First address: I guess you missed the part of:
"...and I don't believe that all laws are necessarilly necessary..."

Second address: Just you trying to spin the subject; because you had nothing else to defend yourself with.

Third address: Which is the truth

Huh? WTF ru talking about?

 

[Timshel]

Then you admit that the use of the word, was an ad hom, seeing as how it wasn't suggested before; but was then attempted by you to try and disprove something that was never suggested.
It was only a "point", in your muddled attempts to try and be correct and you might want to try and take your own advice.
Good job :good4u;

The use of the word epidemic was an ad hom??? I think you mean straw man, though it is not. Please, go research the logical fallacies instead of just continuing to make yourself look like an idiot.

It was not a straw man. My point is that it is not a major problem. It is a minor problem and you said it was more than that. You have not proven your point at all. Further, the minor problem of the black market in moonshine is still caused by prohibition. The damages of that black market might or might not be acceptable to avoid problems of full legalization, though.

Your reply was a real pathetic attempt to try and prove that the black market will disappear, if mj is leagalized; because there won't be a market.
And yet; there is still a black market in alcohol, years after the prohibition was lifted.
Why is that??

Because prohibition still exists.

Fully legalizing mj could not possibly result in a black market. That is not likely or even advisable (i.e., I think it should be prohibited for minors). The damages of what black market may persist after prop 19 would be very small and still caused by the prohibition.

The point is that you try to use the going price as an example that ths profit margin is the only thing keeping the black market in buisiness and yet, the amount that is paid for transportation is minimul.

Transportation is not the only cost or even the major cost. Loss of product due to interdiction is a big cost as is the risk of imprisonment. A marijuana dealer demands a premium largely because of the risk of imprisonment. No on is going to risk imprisonment for $35 an ounce and why would they if they can sell it for more on the legal market??? The buyer is not likely to risk imprisonment to save $3 an ounce.

Why aren't the transporters being paid more, unless you want to imply that they're just stupid?

Where is your proof that this is the going rate? Where did you get the figure from?

My responses are to your questions. If you can't remember the conversation, then it sucks to be you.
Your lack of cognitive thought, is not my fault; so ignore away, if it will make you feel better about your inadequacies.

I have no way of knowing what question they are in response to when you respond in such a vague manner. If you don't want to use the technology to make it clear, then you need to explain what point you are responding to with words. Your lack of writing abilities is your own fault. It is idiotic to claim that I should know what "them" or "it" refers to without context. It’s not a lack of cognitive ability; it is a lack of clarity in your presentation.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Ask around (as I have been going over this point for years) I don't care about name calling. I never have. That's why I ignore yours. Ad homs annoy me because they are a barrier to proper thinking and logic.

I should not have said you name called and I, apparently, misremembered your ad hom as being also name calling. It's not relevant. Do you want a star for another one of your empty points?

I don't give a crap about your ego and chest beating nonsense. I am interested in the issue and the philsophical points. So take your little star and shove it up your ass.



It was pointed out to you over and over and over and over again, that your ad hom was not accurate. Plenty of people that advocate mj legalization do not use mj. Just as not all of those that advocate equality for homosexuals are gay (do you have a problem understanding that one too?).

AND many of us have been engaged in numerous forms of activism and advocacy for mj legalization. It is not just a handful of people that are crying because they got arrested.



BULLSHIT!. You have addressed by saying, "someone said it, go look it up," yet you demand links from me which I have provided. You are a coward or a liar, I don't know which. Personally, I don't give a fuck if the facts show that I goofed up by saying "name calling." I screwed up, oh well. You are still full of shit on THE ACTUAL subject of debate and wrong on your ad homs.



I am not running from anything. You are running from reality which is proven by your stupid scenario. Any law passed will be broken. Then what? The costs of enforcement cannot be ignored or simply blamed on the perpetrator. With just and rational laws the costs of enforcement are acceptable because the damage caused by the ACTUAL crime is too high in comparison to the costs of enforcement. It is your stupid denial of reality that leads you to ignore the costs of the drug war and just blame it all on the drug user.

You are just whining about human nature.



Huh? WTF ru talking about?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The use of the word epidemic was an ad hom??? I think you mean straw man, though it is not. Please, go research the logical fallacies instead of just continuing to make yourself look like an idiot.

It was not a straw man. My point is that it is not a major problem. It is a minor problem and you said it was more than that. You have not proven your point at all. Further, the minor problem of the black market in moonshine is still caused by prohibition. The damages of that black market might or might not be acceptable to avoid problems of full legalization, though.



Because prohibition still exists.

Fully legalizing mj could not possibly result in a black market. That is not likely or even advisable (i.e., I think it should be prohibited for minors). The damages of what black market may persist after prop 19 would be very small and still caused by the prohibition.




Transportation is not the only cost or even the major cost. Loss of product due to interdiction is a big cost as is the risk of imprisonment. A marijuana dealer demands a premium largely because of the risk of imprisonment. No on is going to risk imprisonment for $35 an ounce and why would they if they can sell it for more on the legal market??? The buyer is not likely to risk imprisonment to save $3 an ounce.



Where is your proof that this is the going rate? Where did you get the figure from?



I have no way of knowing what question they are in response to when you respond in such a vague manner. If you don't want to use the technology to make it clear, then you need to explain what point you are responding to with words. Your lack of writing abilities is your own fault. It is idiotic to claim that I should know what "them" or "it" refers to without context. It’s not a lack of cognitive ability; it is a lack of clarity in your presentation.

 

[Timshel]

I accept your concession posts, unfree&dumb. Any of the other drug warriors want to take up the fight or all of you just a bunch of chickenshit whiners.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I accept your concession posts, unfree&dumb. Any of the other drug warriors want to take up the fight or all of you just a bunch of chickenshit whiners.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Perfectly touched up! she is beautiful, I would think about doing her and Megan!

When a woman gives her vote of approval to these babes, and they even manage to provoke bicurious remarks, then its obvious that Megan Fox and Kelly Carlson are my ideal threesome playmates!!