I just see a six year old, stamping his foot and saying “You’re not the boss of me!” in his little squeaky voice.

I’m shocked and disgusted to find out you feel the federal government should be the boss of you, r108. I thought you were someone who stood up for individual rights and limited government intervention. I can see now that you only believe that when it suits you. No principles, what a shame.

Your jealousy of my achievement is noted.

Hahaha! The achievement of spending the bulk of your free time on SAB! Thanks for the laugh. Have fun in your virtual life. The only think I’m jealous of is all the free time you have on your hands.

If you don’t like SA, why do you come here?

When did I say I didn’t like it? I just said SAB use is selfish. And I have no problem with that, since most recreation is done for self-centered reasons (because you enjoy it, Duh).

Haha, and who are you, Robert, to make that decision for me, or any of my responsible, pot smoking friends whom I associate myself with?

I’m not making any decisions for you, druggie; you must be confused. I’m telling you what I think about drugs, and you, being an emotional adolescent, can’t handle that. You are stamping your little foot and squealing “You aren’t the boss of me!” In fact, I consider that drug use is simply darwinism in action. Those who are too stupid to know better get weeded out, by their own choices.
Have you ever considered that laws are for those who don’t know any better? Those signs on freeway offramps that say “Do Not Enter” are not for those who are good drivers; they’re for the idiots who aren’t paying attention, and who are a danger to others.
That’s why we have antidrug laws; for those of you who are too stupid to know any better, and for those who are too young to know better.

pparets said:

If you were about to have delicate brain surgery, which surgeon would you choose? The one who just smoked a joint to alter his mind, or the one who just prayed for a successful procedure?

Another leap of logic. Of course no one would choose a surgeon with any sort of intoxication level on anything. I wouldn’t want one who had just taken his prescription pain killer, or had just had a couple of cocktails in the scrub room either.

Bad example. Would you like to go for Door Number Two?

You forgot the part where legalizing marijuana is going to cause the spin of the Earth to become eccentric and fly us into the sun.

That also would be bad.

Who decides what drugs are “mild”? Parents with young children, or some doofus bureaucrat?

The citizens of the state….

At what cost to our impressionable young people?

Is there no cost to impressionable young people from our current drug laws?

people are now insisting there be no restraints of their evil impulses,

That only goes for evil that only hurts no one but the person choosing the evil.

The other argument is that if you ban marijuana then why not beer?

At some point you have to admit the government needs to butt out of people’s personal lives.

For the record I’ve never as much as tried an illegal drug.

Then let the people vote on it.

That’s what I’ve been saying all along. Let the states set the limits through the political process.

Law for mild drugs (such as marijuana) would be best left to the states.

Who decides what drugs are “mild”? Parents with young children, or some doofus bureaucrat?

I predict that the States with freewheeling, permissive drug policies will lose population to those who vote in responsible drug laws. Especially parents with young children, and those who wish to stay away from drug users.

dont equivocate r108.

You are the epitome of a foolish drug user, here, Sparkie. What part of “vote on it” didn’t you understand?

Because some drugs are so damaging they cause more ills on society.

That’s almost as bad as ‘it’s for the children’. You’ll missing the point of this blog, that adults have the right to make a decision on things that ONLY affect themselves without government intervention. Saying that their actions MIGHT affect others is strictly hearsay with no legal binding. One should not be penalized for what COULD happen. There are enough laws already to prosecute individuals that use their ‘rights’ to harm others.

Is there no cost to impressionable young people from our current drug laws?

The cost is from flaunting those laws, not from enforcing them.

You only want to vote on it because you think the result will be what you want.

I guess in your “altered state”, you think you can read my mind; you’re wrong. As a conservative, I respect the law; if the citizens of my State vote to sanction drug use, I will move to a State where there is good sense. It’s that simple.
Again, what part of “put it to a vote” are you incapable of understanding, Sparkie?
Maybe in your drug-addled mind, you heard something I didn’t say. I said “put it to a vote”, didn’t I? What else did you make up?

Someone will figure out the best balance…

At what cost to our impressionable young people?

This issue is NOT about the basic freedom to do what we choose in the privacy of our homes. People using marijuana and other illegal drugs leave their homes in a mind altered state and place other human beings at risk and they have a negative impact upon the lives of their families. There are many things we do not allow in the privacy of our homes, like child molestation, beating a wife or child, screwing sheep and a host of other acts that the state rightly feels a need to regulate. So, please let us put aside the old canard about people should be able to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes.

This is a moral-spiritual issue! In 1962 the SCOTUS said that the Judeo-Christian God was persona non grata in the affairs of this nation, which over time has morphed into open hostility for the Judeo-Christian God and for any Bible believing Christian. Almost immediately thereafter the sexual revolution and the drug culture went into full swing. Free of all need to adhere to basic moral-spiritual principles, the youth of this country and many formerly self-repressed adults ran wild, engaging in every form of human debauchery. While we no longer have the colorful Hippie images, the harm done then to the moral-spititual fabric of this nations was severe, with the prognosis being the rise of godless atheism, abortions at the rate of 1.5 million each year, euthanasia, physician assisted suicide and widespread, unashamed drug use and eventually the implosion of this nation.

A major manifestation of our moral-spiritual decay can be seen in the form of one person, a decent person, commenting above; being a self confessed Christian that now believes homosexuality and homosexual marriage is no big deal and who can even argue for the legalization of mind altering drugs, because freedom is everything and any moral restraints by the state are all bad.

One of my daughters is an alcoholic, she also smokes grass every night. The house is not filthy, but not very clean either, she is functional in being able to safely hold a job, but after work her entire being is dedicated to getting that buzz ASAP. This has impacted my dearly loved grandson’s life in many ways, including the recognition he has never really had a mother, only the woman that gave him birth that he lives with. So, don’t tell me that private use of drugs, even marijuana is a victimless crime.

I repeat this is not a issue of individual freedom, it is about the moral-spiritual decay of America.

Excuse me, I didn’t get to vote when they were illegalized to begin with.

I doubt that you were alive then, but that’s totally irrelevant, isn’t it? It’s not all about you, it’s about what the majority of Americans want for their country. Again, put it to a vote; don’t use the leftie tactic of forcing it on us through the courts.
BTW, if you think States don’t have anti-drug laws, you don’t know much. When drugs were made illegal, the federal laws generally were guided by State laws. The way it is now is relatively recent, brought about by the general federalization that occurred during the Civil Rights period. You can look it up.

In many instances these costs are outweighed by the good.

Exactly. Adults make decisions on a cost/benefit basis, not out of adolescent rebellion against what they perceive as “authority”. I say again, the federalization of everything started in the Civil Rights period, when the fed started imposing its will on the States, and started overriding State laws.
You are whining about federal antidrug laws, but all States have them, as well. You seem to ignore that, in your rebellion against the feds.
I say again, put it to a vote. I predict that the good people in a State the “legalizes” drugs will vote with their feet.

If you don’t like the laws we have now, put them to a vote;

That’s what we’re saying. Remove it from the national political scene and let the local political process resolve the issue.

Nieman,

I’m truly sorry about the situation with your daughter, but since you use it to illustrate a point, then so will I (with respects)….

People who want to do something like that will do so whether it is legal or not. By decriminalizing this you won’t be increasing the numbers of users (in my opinion), what you’ll be doing is decreasing the number of criminals.

Prohibition did little to stop drinking in America. People made their beer, wine, and whiskey at home. Speakeasies were underground bars where people gathered to basically commit the “crime” of alcohol consumption. Folks went to jail for their choice.

Marijuana laws have basically the same effect. People who want to use it, use it. It has nothing to do with screwing sheep (I’m not sure how you made that leap) or moral decay.

It just gives the government another way to pry into our lives.

First of all, I would like to say I am a marijuana user myself. In fact, I smoke marijuana for fun. I will openly say that I am not using it for any health reasons, with the exception that it does help me sleep.

I have a 130 IQ, I am successful at what I do, I am responsible, and I do not have unresolved mommy and daddy issues.

Like any young man my age, I go on dates, have an active social life, and I seek to improve my life, and have been successful at doing so.

I’m sick of the stereotypes, as well as the ignorance. Bottom line, marijuanna is safer then alcohol. The myth of brain damage and addiction has been disproven. In fact, I have smoked for about 3.5 years (almost daily, with the ocassional break in between if I felt that I needed to focus on more important things). In fact, I just ran out, and I assure you, I will be just fine with out having a doobie in my mouth after I get home from a long day of work.

I am working for a major corporation, and have been promoted 5 times in 2 years. But hey, I’m just a lazy stoner, burnt out stoner, right?

Read the studies. Alcohol is addicitive, impairs judgement (marijuanna alters your state of mind, but doesn’t impact the judgement portion), potentially brings out violence, the risk of overdosing, and not to mention hangovers feel lousy. It’s still legal, while marijuana is not.

Marijuana is none of those things. The worst argument against marijuana, gateway theory, has even been disproven. This is scientific fact. I for one, would like to see some regulated legality, so adults, can make the decisions.

Besides, if you think making alcohol, ciggerettes, or marijuana illegal prevents kids from doing them, then you are probably an ignorant and lousy parent… kids get it all the time, one way or another, so pay attention so they don’t get in over their heads and try something stupid like meth. The more dishonest dealers have no hesitation in exploiting the ignorance of youth to win over a lifetime addicted client.

Think about it. It will at least be harder to get if you have to show your ID at a gas station before you buy your pack of Marlboro Greens (one day…. one day). I never have to show my ID when I pick up a sack, and neither did the kids in my middle school who started when they were mere teenagers. Kids just aren’t ready for such important decisions, but they can make them because someone is selling it on the dangerous, and unregulated black market. It would be a step in the right direction if that were required. Lets be realistic people.

-Bill

I wouldn’t want one who had just taken his prescription pain killer, or had just had a couple of cocktails in the scrub room either.

Anesthesiologists have the best stuff.

I vote Robert beats up Sparkless.

To quote someone else: “He’s not worth the powder to blow him up.”
I just wanted to see how far the moron would try to go with his “individual choice” bullshit.

Bill: If your life is so great, why do you need to smoke pot? How does it benefit you?

You know, that’s a fair question.

1) I don’t need to smoke pot, I want to, and choose too. I need to eat, sleep and have a roof over my head, but I don’t need pot.
2) It changes the very way every thing we eat tastes. It enhances flavors that were previously almost not there. Its amazing. That’s where the munchies come from. We aren’t hungry, its just that good! (I have to be careful, don’t want to be overweight.)
3) Music, is different. I love jazz, you almost ride on the notes. The melodies weave complex webs of sound, and it changes the very way some of my favorite music sounds. Cliche, I know.
4) Its a hell of a way to relax, after a long day of hard work.
5) It’s a good way to bond among friends. Its like an alternative to poker night with some beer, I guess you could say.

I could go on and on, but those first four, are my primary reasons.

Here are the times I never use pot:

1) I am emotionally stressed, or depressed. This is a time to step away, and figure things out for yourself. You can’t become physically dependent on it, but just like some people use food when depressed, using marijuana for an easy fix on life is equally stupid and mentally unhealthy.

2) If I have important tests or a big meeting or something that could have a long range impact on my life.

3) For that matter, I never use it when I go to work at all. I have to have attention to detail, which means I can’t really be too relaxed.

I am not the exception to the rule. A lot of losers are pot smokers, but pot doesn’t make you a loser. Being a loser, makes you a loser, and it just so happens that a lot of losers sit on their asses all day and drink, or smoke pot, and collect their welfare checks. I, am by no means, in that category.

Before I became a smoker, I assumed that pot users were a tiny minority, but now that I am a smoker, I have found that waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more people then I even realized are users.

People who have, and love their families.
People who work hard, and are successful. Even rich, and earned it themselves.
People who are honest, and have a strong sense of integrity.
People who really are incredibly intelligent.

Essentially, people from all walks of life. You may be surprised to find who out there actually smokes.

But, I think you get my point.

108 said:

Beer and other alcoholic drinks already do plenty of damage; why add another intoxicant to the approved list? That seems insane.

So….hey, let’s just pretend that marijuana isn’t the largest cash crop in the US, and let’s just pretend that millions of people don’t use it on a fairly regular basis (including some for whom it has genuine medical benefits) and let’s just keep pretending and the whole thing will go away if we arrest enough people for it.

It’s here and it’s not going to go away. Let’s deal with it without putting ordinary people in jail for it.

Yeesh. Come on, 108.

How incredibly arrogant and socialistic of you.

So, it’s arrogant and socialistic to ask how drug use will benefit anyone? I don’t think so, but your mindset is typical of adolescents who are rebelling against authority.

America was founded so we could all become whatever we damn well please.

Nice druggie mindset, but totally wrong. As usual for druggies and lefties, you confuse freedom with license. Your philosophy appears nowhere in the Constitution.

To take this argument and s-t-r-e-t-c-h it to include, hey, do you want your surgeon smoking dope is ridiculous.

You missed it, Pil. You made the point(unconsciously, I’m sure) that if you’re doing anything useful or productive, you don’t want to be intoxicated. So, what does that make people who choose to be intoxicated? Do the math.

Bill’s wonderful experience notwithstanding, the majority of people whose lives – and, indeed, the lives of others around them – have been destroyed by heroin, cocaine and meth addiction almost always claim they started innocently with marijuana.

Actually I would have left the “arrogant and sosialistic”art of the quote off if the rest would have worked by itself, but it didn’t.

Disagreeing on points – as we often have – doesn’t mean I have any disregard for you. Note the lack of insults when I argue my points. Plenty of snark, but few personal insults. I generally reserve those for much more deserving souls.

Again you lie, nunez. That’s pretty much your only mode, isn’t it? You are the one coming off here as bitter, dude.

What’s all this crap about ‘putting it to a vote’!! How many Federal laws do you know that have been put to the vote? Of course, none. The government conveniently did away with the right of petition and referendum even though it is one of the 1st amendment rights. [And don't give me the crap that you can change a law by who you elect. That is not putting it to a vote!!] The Federal government enacts laws without explicit approval of the voters and once enacted they are almost impossible to repeal.

I’ll have to admit that the Feds have done a stellar job brainwashing the people to the ‘dangers’ of particular substances be they real or imaginary.

Bill’s wonderful experience notwithstanding, the majority of people whose lives – and, indeed, the lives of others around them – have been destroyed by heroin, cocaine and meth addiction almost always claim they started innocently with marijuana.

Actually, there is a study that was done in the University of Pittsburgh that disproved gateway theory. That theory is pretty much the product of overzealous regulators trying to tell people whats good for them.

Marijuana legalization was originally the result of slight racism towards Mexicans. Remember the sleepy mouse on the Speedy Gonzalez cartoon? That was the sleepy mexican stereotype that originated because Marijana was primarily from Mexico during those times.

People just need to open their minds to actual science, rather then preaching what dare has been telling everyone.

Also, Europe recently rescheduled their drugs and marijuana was ranked as less dangerous then both cigarettes, as well as alcohol. I don’t always think Europe is ahead of the curve in things, but on this, they know what is going on.

Hopefully states rights will eventually return, and the prisons can be emptyed of non-violent pot smokers who were just trying to enjoy, (yes robert, I said enjoy) a doobie every once in a while.

It’s the mindset of leftists, such as r108, that is eroding the freedoms of this country.

There is absolutely no logical reason not to include the prohibited drugs in that category.

Are you afraid to let the people decide? Because quite frankly, your opinion is not shared by many Americans.

And finally, the mark of a totalitarian regime is one that believes truly that it knows what is best for its people.

You’d make a wonderful dictator.

Haha, and who are you, Robert, to make that decision for me, or any of my responsible, pot smoking friends whom I associate myself with?

In fact, I am soooooooo irresponsible, I pay my bills on time, have a 735 credit score, and I even have a retirement savings nest egg through my 401k savings plan. I carefully monitor my asset allocation to make sure I am in line with my overall investment objectives so one day, I can retire, and do nothing but blow pot smoke in Robert’s face all day. Right before I cruise around the world on my 50 ft boat. (Still figuring out how to pull that one off, but I’m determined)

You can kiss my ass dude. You know absolutely nothing about pot, and are completely ignorant about what science has to say about this herb. Read a book.

Oh, and alcohol is a drug, so if you have ever sipped a martini, that makes you a druggie Robert. How do you live with yourself being such a druggie Robert? How?

You really shouldn’t be so hard on yourself.

Heh. Irony is a bitch.

Of course, that is the answer that many are avoiding.

Actually, I have already addressed that strawman argument; alcohol damages us, and so why add another intoxicant to the “approved” list?

As with all things there are limnits, of course, but can you honestly say that the government doesn’t
control too much of our lives as it is?

So, it’s about setting the right limits, then? The druggie “freedom” bullshit is about having no limits.
I never thought you were a druggie, btw; you seem way to mature for that.
For me, freedom carries responsibility, and drug use is irresponsible and self-indulgent. I think the laws are there to remind those who don’t have the brainpower to figure things out for themselves. I don’t need laws to tell me not to use drugs. I don’t choose to use drugs, because it would be stupid. I have no problem with drug laws, because they don’t affect me.
We have drug laws because the majority wants them. If that changes, then the laws will change.

Remove it from the national political scene and
let the local political process resolve the issue.

Why impose such limitations on the voters? Let the vote happen at any and all levels the people want to have them happen. Why try to control it?

By the way, 108, I’m no druggie, either. I haven’t touched the stuff in 25 years.

I believe in personal freedoms, that’s all. As with all things there are limnits, of course, but can you honestly say that the government doesn’t control too much of our lives as it is?

But you’re not a principled person, so I
wouldn’t expect you to understand that.

I expect druggies to be unaware of the difference between “freedom” and “license”. Freedom requires responsibility, which is what druggies lack.
If you were responsible, you would know better than to waste your time, money and energy on drugs. Duh.

Who’s stamping their feet? HAHA

All of my points have been well reasoned and logical. Not to mention primarily based on scientific fact.

Sorry you don’t grasp enough of the English language to see that.

I don’t think smoking marijauana equates with any of the above. Come on.

It does on the rationalization you offered. Does your rationalization only apply where you want it to apply? What’s up with that?

I think I am done with this thread.

Of course you are, druggie. Drug use is all emotional; there is no science, only indulgent need.

likwid: Here’s the deal: I have never told anyone not to use drugs, which is one of your false accusations against me. I have never written any anti-drug legislation, either. You constantly use the strawman of the lone drug user just smoking a joint in the privacy of his home, as the typical drug user who is victimized by these drug laws, when that is obviously not the case. We don’t criminalize attention, we criminalize behavior, and doing things in the privacy of your home isn’t generally targeted as criminal behavior, unless it spills over to the outside. In fact, since I live in a college town, the behavior of drug users that offends the rest of us is in evidence all during the school year, and it is quite public. Those are the drug users that give the rest of you a bad name. Ditto those who commit property crimes to finance their habit.
Not only do I not tell anyone not to use drugs, but I have said that I consider drug use to be Darwinian in nature.
You’re attacking the wrong guy. Go attack all the law-abiding citizens who are harmed by irresponsible drug use. That’ll work.

…who oppose individual freedom of choice, which I believe you do…

Drug use isn’t freedom, it’s slavery. The “freedom of choice” argument is bullshit. You don’t have the freedom of choice to drink and drive without consequences, either. You confuse freedom with license, again and again. Freedom requires responsibility; license is doing whatever you feel like doing, regardless of how it affects you and everyone else. Big difference.

robert108 – yeah, yeah, I think most of us get it. You’re for the safety of “our children” and everybody who disagrees with you on this topic is derided as a “druggie”. As said above, this makes it all but impossible to have a civil conversation.

Part of the problem with bad laws is that it raises contempt for the law. Call it a gateway crime.

Nope. If you don’t like the laws we have now, put them to a vote; let the people decide, again. You might find that the majority of us don’t consider antidrug laws to be “bad laws”. An inconvenient truth.

Drug use is irrational.

Likwid: I’m sorry you find it necessary to lie about what I actually said. I personally find drug use wrong, and you can’t seem to be able to handle that. Tough.
If you were civil on this subject, we could have a discussion, but you are always emotional and reactive when drug use is discussed. You attack anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
In the past, you have falsely accused me of wanting totalitarian control over you, and I have no interest in that at all. You will use your drugs as you choose, and will enjoy the consequences of doing that. I’m sure I’m not the only one in your life who has questioned the wisdom of drug use, but you don’t listen, and wish to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with that part of your lifestyle.
The phony “victim” argument won’t work with me. We are all responsible for our choices in life.
Legalization won’t same anyone from the consequences of their drug use; it just gives those who are unable to make an intelligent decision the impression that they are “OK”. Not good.

I would further say that if Pilgrim after his retirement wishes to do a bit of gardening to keep himself busy that it’s not the business of the federal
government to interfere.

Nice fantasy, but the law would be enforced by local or State authorities, unless he decided to go into mass marketing of his “crop” across State lines.
I guess if he’s arrested by State or local authorities, that’s OK with you?

You have yourself convinced. Why not
just shut up?

Good advice for you, Sparkie! Btw, it is you who are doing the namecalling, not me. I made a comparison, I didn’t call you a name. Sorry you can’t tell the difference.
The fact is, Sparkie, I think you should use a whole lot more drugs. There you go!

What was that “positive argument for drug use”?

I must have missed it among your angry namecalling and cursing.

Then why the push for legalization?

Because I am a
small government type.

So, when the people, speaking through their govt, wish to keep drugs illegal, it’s “big govt”, but when your minority forces legalization on us through the govt, it’s “small govt”? That’s ridiculous! You just want to use your drugs without consequence.

Sorry 108, not so.

Intoxication is a bad idea on any job at any time and I’m not endorsing it. To take this argument and s-t-r-e-t-c-h it to include, hey, do you want your surgeon smoking dope is ridiculous.

robert108 – likwid: Here’s the deal: I have never told anyone not to use drugs, which is one of your false accusations against me.

It is? Huh. News to me!

This must be in the same category as the “you have falsely accused me of wanting totalitarian control over you” claim made earlier. That is, pure bullshit. And bullshit that you won’t back up with definitive links either. You’ll just glob on and repeat it again sometime in the future as if it were true when it’s really not. Then, if history is any guide, you’ll demand that I answer for this something that I have never said.

The deal is this: you like to label people liars. This usually comes out when you’re at a losing point in the argument. It’s as simple as that.

You constantly use the strawman of the lone drug user just smoking a joint in the privacy of his home, as the typical drug user who is victimized by these drug laws…

I do? Where? Should be easy to link it.

Those are the drug users that give the rest of you a bad name.

“The rest of you”?

You often assume motives beyond what is given. If someone is in favor of drug legalization? Must be a drug user. Someone in favor of gay marriage? Probably some homosexual.

You’re attacking the wrong guy.

You think I’m attacking you? Wow.

I’ll stick to attacking your positions, illogical debating techniques, false dichotomies, accusations, straw man arguments, and the like.

Go attack all the law-abiding citizens who are harmed by irresponsible drug use.

Now why would I do that? It only makes sense from a certain perspective.

I have asked you many times to make a positive argument for drug use, but you never give one. So, you are being disingenuous here.

Well I’m sorry that I’m not easily steered into the straw man that you’ve set up to attack. Do you have a bad memory or something? It’s already been answered.

BTW, where was the “being disingenuous” part?

As far as your misquoting me, I was simply pointing out how I experience your “debate technique” on this subject. You continue to mischaracterize what I really said.(That’s an example with details, btw)

Where did this happen? What is the misquote? What is the example? What are the details?

Anybody who is in favor of legalization or who wish that this matter be left to the states is slandered a “druggie”. This makes it all but impossible to have a civil conversation.

“druggies” at Say Anything blog:

Rob
Pilgrim
LoadTheMule
The Whistler
Sparkie Arbuckle
docdave

Anybody who is in favor of legalization is accused of “forcing drug use on us”. This makes about as much sense as saying that fast food franchises “force obesity on us”. Ironically, this line of argument comes from some of the same people who insist that we’re individuals, yet deny that individuality when it suits their purpose.

Neiman had it right when he said,

Whenever people want to defend the indefensible, they always engage in bullshit arguments.

Pity that he said that before and after he engaged in some bullshit arguments.

The other argument is that if you ban marijuana then why not beer?

Beer and other alcoholic drinks already do plenty of damage; why add another intoxicant to the approved list? That seems insane.

since I live in a college town

Bob Jones University?

It should be just like Booze.

Of course, that is the answer that many are avoiding. Really most drugs are already regulated in some manner. There is absolutely no logical reason not to include the prohibited drugs in that category.

Until then, enjoy the record above explicitly spelling out where and how you have lied about various people and their positions, and the repeated
corrections to the truth that only went ignored by you.

Only in your fantasies; all you have done is to try to win by mischaracterizing what I say and have said, while failing to give any sort of cogent argument for legalizing drugs, listing the cost/benefit analysis that justifies your position. You continue to be under the impression that if you fling enough shit at me, you will somehow win, but you are sadly mistaken.
It’s a fact that drug use is destructive and stupid, and that the American people don’t want your drugs to be legalized.
I’m glad to hear that you have signed petitions for your position. At least you’re not as hypocritical as most who advocate your position.
You might persuade more people if you could make an accurate cost/benefit argument for drug use.
Otherwise, you are just trying to force your beliefs on those who don’t share them.

Why not make an argument for your pro-drug position?

Not speaking for Likwid…..just stole boberts response to his post……
The argument isnt pro or anti drug, its what is freedom. Your idea of freedom is not normal, and not acceptable to most people. What you want to do is define freedom to meet your narrow view. Lucky for us your just a lonely old guy sitting in an ass smelly chair posting madly night and day. You think your something, but your actually sad and pathetic. You get one vote, just like everyone else. The rest is just your insecure inner child striking out while simultaneously yearning for acceptance and attention.

Why can’t you make a positive argument for your position, without mischaracterizing what I say?

What? Where was the mischaracterizing?

What’s your positive argument for putting more intoxicants on the approved list? How are we going to benefit from that action?

I’ve said before: you own your body. Simple as that.

You deny the argument, call me a liar, claim mischaracterizations, make it personal, claim you’re a victim of personal attacks, and that’s that. It’s a merry-go-round.

Sparkie gave another answer. What did you do? You denied the argument, insulted him, assumed motive beyond what was given, insulted him some more, called him a moron, and then assumed another motive beyond what was given.

Merry-go-round.

Nope. I just point out that the choice to use drugs is destructive and stupid. You lie again.

Why are you calling Sparkie a liar for saying that you wish for drugs to be illegal? It’s true, you do.

Despite what you said about me, I don’t support jail time for potheads; their stash should be confiscated…

How does that work unless it is illegal?

You owe Sparkie an apology.

Another lie from you; I have never taken that position.

Sparkie said, “you seem to prefer”.

No lie. You owe Sparkie another apology.

The truth is that you don’t want to suffer the consequences of your drug-seeking and drug-using behavior.

After you get done calling Sparkie (as well as many others) liars, you then get down to making some assumptions about Sparkie’s motives.

Not too smooth, robert. Not smooth at all.

You want to deprive society of the ability to restrict behavior it desires to restrict through court action.

Here’s another claim that you’ve never backed up. Can you point to where Sparkie, Pilgrim, docdave, or anybody else here has made the argument in favor of courts deciding?

It would behoove your severely waning credibility to go ahead and provide the links.

Good advice for you, Sparkie! Btw, it is you who are doing the namecalling, not me. I made a comparison, I didn’t call you a name. Sorry you can’t tell the difference.

He was talking about the comment directly his above where you called him a “moron”.

You owe Sparkie another apology.

You sure it’s not alcohol? Or does that one not count because it is legal?

Granted as regards both alcohol and cigarettes! I confined my comments to those drugs that are now illegal! So, the gateway into illegal drug use in almost every case starts with marijuana.

Gotcha.

You got me on what? Because these people you listed, in your opinion do not fall into any of these categories I mentioned? Sorry, my statement stands! It is not a matter of demonization, but rather an honest expression of my opinion on the basic reasons why anyone supports legalization of drugs. That includes Whistler, whom I normally respect most sincerely, but lately has demonstrated that his moral-spiritual beliefs on some key issues, IMO, are no different than any atheist or God hating liberal.

Meanwhile, people such as The Whistler or Pilgrim have never used while you and robert108 both have. Go figure.

A) You only have their word, which not being open to investigation or proof on this issue, are open to question. B) At least Robert108 and I are honest, and if you recall I only tried marijuana once and found it unacceptable, which hardly makes me a former Hippie, drug addict. The worst you can call us on this issue is HONEST. C) If a former drug addict speaks out on the destructive nature of drugs, does his/her former use make what they say any less the truth? Or, wouldn’t such people having escaped the deleterious effects of the drug lifestyle have more direct knowledge of the truth as touching this mater than those never having touched these drugs?

Speaking of slandering, it is your most powerful weapon and shuts up more people than you could ever imagine. The scare campaign actually works.

Considering your usual ability to debate rationally and intelligently, this is exceptionally stupid IMO. Until you used names here, I only spoke of this in general terms. Expressing my personal opinion, in general terms, on the type of person which fights for the legalization of drugs. You don’t have to agree with that position, but it is hardly slander or a scare tactic. Quite frankly, such a stupid comment as this is beneath you, you are a much better and more honest person than that in my opinion.

Lastly, I don’t accept the cost benefit analysis approach of some either, nor do I find the legalization and use of most of these drugs for recreational purposes a matter for the polls or based on votes cast. I believe that such drugs, even marijuana are destructive of the lives of users, family members and society simply because they are always, to varying degrees destructive of those involved and if 99.9% of the people on earth said okay, it still would not make it right, it would only make it legal.

So you are against cigarettes too?

How many millions of lives would have been saved and how many billions, perhaps trillions of dollars in health care could have been saved if cigarettes had been illegal?

Robert108: You asked: “Are you even close to being rational today, Sparkie?” I have yet to see him ever be rational about anything!

robert108 – nice use of strawmen, accusations of lying, and false assumptions.

Wouldn’t expect anything less.

Or maybe it’s anything more…

After numerous denials about this supposed fear, is it fair to call you a big fat liar yet?

You can call me anything you want, if it makes you feel better. It won’t change the facts of the matter, of course. Drug use is destructive and stupid. Most Americans realize this, and don’t want them on the approved list.
However, if you can get the votes, go ahead. Until then, all you can do is to vent your spleen at those who disagree with you. Good luck!

Drug use is destructive and stupid.

What about all the other stuff bobert? If destructive and stupid is the bar, then you should be deemed unacceptable, as you are destructive and stupid.

So, it’s about setting the right limits, then?

Yep.

robert108 – Only in your fantasies; all you have done is to try to win by mischaracterizing what I say and have said…

Any chance that you’ll ever explain when and where this happened?

Didn’t think so. Because these mischaracterizations do not exist.

…while failing to give any sort of cogent argument for legalizing drugs…

At 4:20 PM Eastern Time (time zone preference may vary), the answer of “you own your own body” was given.

But I guess that since you disagree with the answer, you can continue to claim that no “cogent” argument was given. *shrugs* You’re impossible to please. The only “cogent” answer you’ll accept is one you agree with.

BTW, nice word choice there. Furtive, but effective.

…listing the cost/benefit analysis that justifies your position.

Not a requirement and, as before, you would only disregard any answer that you don’t agree with.

You continue to be under the impression that if you fling enough shit at me…

You mean the truth.

…you will somehow win, but you are sadly mistaken.

Win what? Is there a prize?

Reality check: this is a blog on the Internet and I’m arguing with a 21,000+ comment member. Nothing wrong with that of course, but “winning” a debate with a guy willing to lie and obfuscate and use as many comments as it takes to get his last lying word in is an exercise in futility. There’s obviously some other reason why I’m willing to spend my time arguing with a person such as yourself, and that reason is light and cheap entertainment. Nothing more, nothing less. I was long ago disabused of the notion that you were an honorable debate opponent. There is no “winning” in the traditional sense.

It’s a fact that drug use is destructive and stupid, and that the American people don’t want your drugs to be legalized.

Oh, now they’re “your drugs”.

How dishonest, robert. How,..typical.

I’m glad to hear that you have signed petitions for your position.

Can I get an apology for your repeated assertions that I “fear a vote by the people” or that I wish to impose this by the courts?

An honest person would give one.

Coincidentally, “my position” is also your position, is it not? “I say again: put it to a vote.”

Otherwise, you are just trying to force your beliefs on those who don’t share them.

I’m trying to force my beliefs on people by signing a petition to make it a ballot issue? Wow! Now that’s just upside down thinking right there. The “lying lefties” you deride so often don’t have anything on you! Holy shit.

robert108 – I have explained every one of them, in detail, every time you have done it. Denying it doesn’t change that fact.

Not a link nor a direct quote was given. If you had evidence for your charges of misrepresenting you, you would have brought it.

An honest person would have apologized every time he was called on his repeated attempts to attack me by mischaracterizing what I say and stand for.

I ask for an apology for a demonstrated lie that you repeated over and over despite my denials and you come at me with this shit?

It’s like arguing with a child.

If I had said that, you would come at me with the very legit point of “me too” arguments don’t work. But it’s different when you’re making them.

It’s amazing. You’ve got very little in the way of solid principles. Economics – usually pretty solid. Just about everything else we discuss on this site that you proclaim to be against (limited government, socialism) or for (federalism) – is up against the whim of whatever topic we’re discussing.

The American people seem to want drugs to be illegal, since only drug advocates and users are advocating your position.

What a stupid statement. Drugs are everywhere, we cant even find a president in the last 5 elections who hasnt done drugs. Doctors prescribe “approved” drugs to replace the illegal ones. This is all about putting the $$ spent on mind altering substances into the correct pockets. Who told you where rights end and choices began? If you say the constitution, then most things we do would be choices and not rights. Well, this might work in your little black and white world, where anyone who disagrees with you is a liar, but in the real world, making those choices is the very definition of freedom. Im glad we dont live in a whole world of bobert108′s. It would be a pretty lame place to live.
By your rationale, all things detrimantal by your judgment would be illegal, or at least not a right at all. How about twinkies? Beer? Porn? Skydiving? Rock climbing? Sex outside marriage? Disbelief in god and the bible? These, like drugs, are a personal choice. Driving or traveling? How about dancing? People keel over all the time while dancing and fucking….should they be considered a “choice” that you would like to stamp out?
The drug war is the nanny state personified. bobert108 is a nitwit.

Any chance that you’ll ever explain when and where this happened?

I have explained every one of them, in detail, every time you have done it. Denying it doesn’t change that fact.

An honest person would give one.

An honest person would have apologized every time he was called on his repeated attempts to attack me by mischaracterizing what I say and stand for.

I don’t respect your position on drug use. If you really want to have the people vote on this matter, then we do agree, and there is no need for any further discussion, but you keep going with your attacks. I have to conclude that you can’t deal with my criticism of drug use, so you really don’t want a vote, unless it goes your way. If I’m wrong, I apologize, but I have no other explanation for your overt hostility to my having an opinion that doesn’t agree with yours.
Despite your multiple accusations, I have never legislated against your drugs, nor have I ever arrested anyone for using drugs. Personally, I shun drug users. I don’t knowingly do business with them, and I refuse to contribute to their lifestyle in any way. I do this because I have experienced drug use directly(as I have told you multiple times before) and indirectly through watching friends and acquaintances go down that destructive path. I can’t support legalization, because I regard it as wrong.
I have no desire to tell you what to do, and have never done so, in all our discussions, no matter how many times you have falsely accused me of it.
I hope your drug use doesn’t bring harm to you, but don’t see how it can’t. I actually feel sorry for you.

Since you refuse to attempt a cost/benefit argument, here’s mine:
If drugs don’t really affect someone, why take them? In fact, they do affect a person, and that creates the dependency. It fills some space in those people that they regard as lacking, so that they don’t pursue personal growth an development; they take drugs instead. Over time, whatever personal benefit someone might think is coming from drugs is overwhelmed by the costs, in money, time and lack of progress in the difficult area of personal development.

So, the people who use drugs and who advocate drug use are the “good guys”, and those who want to keep drugs out of our society and away from our children are the “bad guys”?

What a topsy-turvy world!

Again; drug use is “freedom”? From my point of view, drug use is enslavement.

I have been accused of being a “dictator” for saying that I regard drug use as stupid and destructive.
So, expressing my personal opinion is “dictatorial”? In what world is that true?
Calling someone who either uses drugs or who advocates drug use a “druggie” isn’t “slander”. You can look it up.

No, instead you argue for totally alleviating them of that choice.

Nope. I just point out that the choice to use drugs is destructive and stupid. You lie again.

You seem to prefer having as many laws as you have personal issues with the variety of free actions of other individuals.

Another lie from you; I have never taken that position.

What do you say about the empirical data that proves there is no correlation between drug legalization and drug use?

Then why the push for legalization? You know you can use all the drugs you want already. The truth is that you don’t want to suffer the consequences of your drug-seeking and drug-using behavior.

The truth here is that society in general supports drug laws. You want to deprive society of the ability to restrict behavior it desires to restrict through court action. That is the leftie way.

I say again: put it to a vote. Get it on the ballot, if you can. If you really have such a big constituency, it should be easy.

The drug advocates seem to want to force this on us through the courts.

Huh?

From Pilgrim’s post:

Anyway, the resolution introduced by Barney Frank is HR 5843. It even invokes the states rights issue,

It is you who continue to make false accusations; I have expressed an opinion that doesn’t agree with yours, and you relentlessly attack me for it, resorting to mischaracterization of what I say and of what I stand for. No matter how many times I tell you the truth, you keep lying about what I stand for. You only do this when the subject is drug use, so that must be an emotional trigger for you. You seem rational on all other subjects, but on this one, you go after anyone who doesn’t agree with you like an angry pit bull.
I think drug use is destructive and stupid, and the evidence of the truth of that is everywhere.
Adding another intoxicant to the “approved” list is insane, IMO.
Nothing you offer on this subject gives me any reason to change what I already know.

Neiman – You got me on what?

Gotcha = I got it; I get it.

You only have their word, which not being open to investigation or proof on this issue, are open to question.

True. But with people such as Pilgrim or The Whistler? After knowing them for years, I have no problem taking them at their word. I assume good faith with those two.

Even if those two were lying, there are a lot of people out in the world who fit the profile of never having used, but believe it should be legal. Such people generally do not appreciate being told that they are “druggies”, “mentally deranged” or “spiritually bankrupt”, especially when they’re endorsing a policy that arguably and demonstrably lowers the rate of drug use.

Prohibition is a lot like liberalism in that way – it generates the exact opposite of its stated intent. In the end, the “mentally deranged” just may be those who endorse the policy that results in higher drug usage.

It’s something to think about in any regard.

At least Robert108 and I are honest…

Hah! Maybe you are…

If a former drug addict speaks out on the destructive nature of drugs, does his/her former use make what they say any less the truth?

No, it doesn’t. It just makes the use of “druggie” towards those who have never used look quite ridiculous next to the one who has.

Considering your usual ability to debate rationally and intelligently, this is exceptionally stupid IMO.

Considering your demeanor and arguments in this thread, perhaps I shouldn’t have directed that one your way.

The general principle stands, however. As you can see in this thread, people who argue in favor of legalization or even federalism are labeled all manner of things. This usually comes with the territory of any political/governmental/social discussion, but drugs hold a special place in our society. The possibility of being labeled a “druggie” by a prolific writer that nobody has the time to constantly rebuke while arguing in favor of either legalization or federalism effectively shuts up a lot of those who believe the “drug war” to be an ineffective failure. Nobody wants a potential employer Googling their name and seeing those kinds of accusations. The accusations of underlying motives are all it takes for some employers to continue on and not take the chance that the charges are true. And who can blame them? Time is limited and time spent searching to see if the accusations hold any merit could be better spent looking at another candidate.

At least, that’s my view as well as what I have been told by a couple of the regulars here. It makes sense. It scares people off from even discussing the issue. It poisons debate before it has a chance to begin. The tactic is slander and it shuts people up.

I believe that such drugs, even marijuana are destructive of the lives of users, family members and society simply because they are always, to varying degrees destructive of those involved and if 99.9% of the people on earth said okay, it still would not make it right, it would only make it legal.

I can respect that. We disagree, but it is our principles that are butting heads rather than the dishonest trope I’ve been calling robert108 on.

Neiman: Don’t fear the cost/benefit argument from drug advocates. I have yet to find one who could actually make that argument in any credible way.

robert108 offers up, You keep trying to make it personal; why do you do that?

And then follows with,

You can’t handle anyone disagreeing with your advocacy of drug use.

And then to hammer it again,

Dangerous to your advocacy of drug use

Goodness, what an unmitigated jackass you are.

You’re just adamant on lying about me, aren’t you? WTF. You do this every single time.

Now you can whine about me calling you a jackass for repeatedly lying about me.

Thanks for proving everything I have laid out above about your behavior, your lying, and your debating tactics. Really, I couldn’t have done a better job. You totally deserve that credit.

Now have at it: say something like “wrong again”, mischaracterize the position yet again as if it wasn’t repeatedly clarified every other last time it was mischaracterized, lie again, claim that you feel sorry for me or some other worthless pity BS, invent some more narratives, invent some more motives, and then finish it off by spamming this thread with four or five comments in a row.

Now have at it: say something like “wrong again”, mischaracterize the position yet again as if it wasn’t repeatedly clarified every other last time it was mischaracterized, lie again, claim that you feel sorry for me or some other worthless pity BS, invent some more narratives, invent some more motives, and then finish it off by spamming this thread with four or five comments in a row.

A perfect description of your own technique.
I regard drug use as destructive and stupid.
If the population votes to legalize these drugs, the citizens who know better will have to take matters in our own hands, and simply shun the drug users.

But, don’t tell me I cant.

I just see a six year old, stamping his foot and saying “You’re not the boss of me!” in his little squeaky voice.

Robert:

Every decision made, is made for personal choice. Am I going to be a doctor, lawyer, or trashman?

Do people eat hamburgers for any other reason then becuse they like hamburgers? DUH. Of couse I partake because I like it. It has nothing to do with nature of the substance, but merely the nature of free men.

Stop making me out to be some sort of degenerate, and reserve your closed minded judgements for yourself.

-Bill

Robert is a bitter old man.

Every time we lower the bar on core social-moral issues, we slide further down into the moral abyss. In SF after 1962 we quickly saw a few Burlesque houses frequented mostly by alcoholic degenerates change to many clubs with topless dancers (no covering of the nipples), then into topless dancers and topless waitresses, then topless-bottomless dancers, then simulated sex acts on stage, then it moved on to audience participation wherein the topless-bottomless dancers sat on customers laps and dry F*^ked them, then somewhere during all of this we had gay clubs with sexual intercourse in the clubs, then at the audience participation clubs the same dancers took a customer into a private room for sexual intercourse. The point being, once you lower the moral bar just a little, youi cannot stop the next little step, then the next until it is out of control and you have legalized whore houses in the city.

Once we legalize marijuana use and growing, seemingly a reasonable little step to accommodate all those potheads mentioned above. Then, what is your rationale to deny them cocaine, heroin or any other drug. Because while the first step may seem small and a hard battle, the many next steps come faster and easier until all drugs, even current prescription drugs are legalized and then, hey how about marijuana being legal for 12-year-olds?

There we go again. S-T-R-E-T-C-H.

I don’t think smoking marijauana equates with any of the above.

As Robert108 said, I was clearly talking about your rationalization, attacking that premise.

Robert is a troll, ignore him.

Every decision made, is made for personal choice.

I guess you don’t have a family, then.

Stop making me out to be some sort of degenerate…

Your words, not mine.

Law for mild drugs (such as marijuana) would be best left to the states.

Why not all drugs?

r108
if you can’t appreciate the difference between someone smoking a joint and someone beating the crap out of someone else, i’m done here. as i have pointed out, if you actually wanted less people to use, you’d be in favor of legalizing it.

r108
you exude hypocrisy. you are probably shooting up right now.

pp
Pilgrim put you in your place. I do not need to beat a dead horsie.

r108
stubbed his e-toe. d’oh.

it’s about what the majority of Americans want for their country

No, it’s not. As you have said in the past, “This is a representative republic”

What’s your positive argument for putting more intoxicants on the approved list?

Its been pointed out to you countless times. You ignore it like the Massholes who deride Vermont gun laws with state funded billboards along interstate 93. You know what’s best for others, just like a socialist elitist.

I have never told anyone not to use drugs

No, instead you argue for totally alleviating them of that choice. Like democrats do with seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmet laws. Sure, seatbelts and motorcycle helmets are recommended, they save lives… but should there be laws mandating that we use them? You seem to prefer having as many laws as you have personal issues with the variety of free actions of other individuals. That strikes me as a decidedly democrat platform.

What do you say about the empirical data that proves there is no correlation between drug legalization and drug use? I posted it in the first 100 comments on this thread and in a blog post about the failed drug war. Given the empirical facts about use rates when comparing the Netherlands to the USA, you come off like one of those Democrats who wishes to make guns illegal. There is absolutely no correlation of the sort your argument is premised on, just like the gun banning Democrats.

In short, your points are the epitome of fallacy.

Baseless.

And you invoke rationality! What a buzzword whore you are. Practice your McCarthyism somewhere else, you obviously aren’t fooling the ‘druggies’.

I vote Robert beats up Sparkless.

As if softy California boys could ever beat up on a backwoods Vermonter! Ha! I actually own a pair of boots. r108 might stub a toe wearing flip flops…

Then why the push for legalization?

Because I am a small government type.

r108
Like I said, you’ve got yourself convinced. No one else perceives you as ‘being at a winning point in the argument’. You didn’t even have to type one word to achieve that. Now look at all the harm you have wrought on your own position.

D’oh.

Rationality proper vs. Guy who invokes it as a buzzword to silence opponents.

Tough choice.

Neiman

if 99.9% of the people on earth said okay, it still would not make it right, it would only make it legal

Tell us all how it is, Neiman. You’re the one who can just ‘intuit’ these things. My opinion is that any restrictions of our positive freedoms should come with a non-question begging rationalization or some variety. All you offer is intuition, your opinion, which you confuse with objective morality. What if someone argued like that for wealth redistribution? How would you respond?

You equivocate:

an honest expression of my opinion

or

if 99.9% of the people on earth said okay, it still would not make it right, it would only make it legal

Is that still your opinion at the end? If so, you need to learn what ‘opinion’ means.

dont equivocate r108.