I mean just because someone is in a minority doesn't mean that I should have to pander to them and their desires.
Originally Posted by TokiOriginally Posted by TokiOriginally Posted by Pickles
Well then shouldn't it be my choice to decide whether or not I should say, be able to own slaves? Who decides what is and isn't a victimless crime? I personally feel that that there are victims associated with marijuana use, even if it's just the person that is using it, whether or not they even realize that they are the victim.
Once again it goes back to the majority making the call on whether or not it should be legalized. When a majority goes in and votes that marijuana should be legal, I'll be ok with it.
Originally Posted by TokiOriginally Posted by TokiOriginally Posted by Pickles
i made that comment not because of your opinion on the legalization of marijuana, because tbh i couldn't give two fucks what you think (or if it even gets legalized in the first place), but because of the blatant irony in your statement applying to an already legal liquid.
???
It's a victimless crime because you are consenting to it. You're consenting to you giving yourself a joint. It's pretty simple. The slave presumably hasn't consented to his slavery.
You could take that further and say 'ah, but maybe you don't know how bad it is!', which is pretty bogus, since I find the idea that the state knows better than I do about my own body to be pretty ridiculous.
Right...Once again it goes back to the majority making the call on whether or not it should be legalized. When a majority goes in and votes that marijuana should be legal, I'll be ok with it.
Well to be quite honest my argument here is pretty weak because I'm playing the Devil's advocate here. (read trolling)
I'm just saying that the same "totalitarian" system that you're downing is the system that is telling me that I can't have 34 negroids plowing my fields right now. Also, just because you consent to something doesn't mean that it's a victimless crime. Dr. Kevorkian's patients consented to being offed by him, that doesn't mean that there weren't victims involved.
So yeah what I'm getting at is that people aren't always the best judge of what is and isn't good for themselves and society as a whole. It's all pretty subjective though and I don't feel like it's my place to tell a majority of the population what is and isn't right, although I do feel like it's my place to disagree if I see fit. You're acting as if the government is stepping in here and forcing something on people, but at the end of the day it's the people who make the final call, and government just enforces it.
Originally Posted by TokiOriginally Posted by TokiOriginally Posted by Pickles
Are you thick or something? Re-read my post where I noted the (obvious) difference between slave owning (THE SLAVES CAN'T CONSENT TO IT) and smoking a joint (YOU CONSENT TO GIVING YOURSELF THE JOINT).
If there is consent, there, by definition, cannot be a victim.
Sure you can disagree. Your first point is just wrong, though. On the contrary, I think people ARE the best judge of what and what isn't good for themselves* - you noted yourself that it is subjective, which is precisely the reason it is both illogical and oppressive for the majority of the population - through force, law, government, whatever - to tell others how to live their lives. It makes no sense. Furthermore, people have no obligation to 'society' as a whole if they do not want to. Government/elected officials/res publica/whatever forcing this obligation is just absurd and, again, leads to totalitarianism.So yeah what I'm getting at is that people aren't always the best judge of what is and isn't good for themselves and society as a whole. It's all pretty subjective though and I don't feel like it's my place to tell a majority of the population what is and isn't right, although I do feel like it's my place to disagree if I see fit.
* this obviously involves taking responsibility for actions.
I don't get this bit.You're acting as if the government is stepping in here and forcing something on people, but at the end of the day it's the people who make the final call, and government just enforces it.
I'm pro-legalization because I think people have a right to choose what they ingest into their own bodies, even if it is a hard drug that can hurt or kill them. As long as you aren't bothering anyone else (i.e. there are laws against drunk driving, smoking in public places, etc) then the government should have no right to tell you what you can or can't ingest. Besides that overall point, this is a states right issue anyway, the Federal government has no business making laws against drugs outside of interstate commerce and sale, each individual state should make their own laws.
They voluntarily associate with you, and any 'hurt' they feel (emotional, I presume) is implicitly consensual. Not that I condone it personally, but it goes back to taking responsibility for one's actions.
And obviously you can't just go around blowing smoke into people's faces.
I mean I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly.3)Obviously.
Translation = can you elaborate?
Well I mean I'm not sure how much more I can elaborate on that.
Originally Posted by TokiOriginally Posted by TokiOriginally Posted by Pickles
and Benzss you should drop this, cause he is doing a good job of trolling.
Hey Wolford if I showed up at your house with a blunt of some bomb ass chronic would you have a smoke session?
And if you got dilaudids I'll bring the rigs
So...........
You guys call the number or what?
Just did.
*calls a random phone number to "support" the legalization of marijuana*
*has his phone number traced by law enforcement*
*gets busted in the biggest drug raid to ever hit the country*
Even unicorns smoke weed, and they don't even exist!
i rest my case
It was a briefcase, we know that much.
Image leeching is frowned upon because you are using their bandwidth to display the images here, that they may not have consented to but they have to literally pay the bill for every time this thread is loaded.
The alternatives are numerous:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=free+...fp=plMEEOJK8PA
There are literally hundreds or thousands of different free services to host your images on. The one other rule about that is that you obey the sites Terms of Service which generally means don't post adult-themed pictures unless they explicitly allow it.
Originally Posted by TokiOriginally Posted by TokiOriginally Posted by Pickles
Protip: Weed's not for everyone, I know smokers who don't want it legalized and nonsmokers who do want it legalized. Whether you like smoking it or not really has no effect on whether or not you believe it should be legalized
I personally am for it, but I really don't see it happening for a while
Negroes
Unless one was a drug dealer who made money off the fact that drugs are illegal, I can't think of any other possible situation/reason why a drug user would oppose legalization and taxation in the same way alcohol is regulated and taxed. The only other POSSIBLE reason would be if a person just didn't care or thinks his risk of getting into trouble is lower than the taxes would be (from an economical sense). I just can't see any real plausible reason why a user would oppose legalization.. so what am I missing here? Why would a smoker not want it legalized?
You're right. The only people(who smoke) who don't want it legalized are dealers, liars or idiots. Dealers are dumb for wanting it to stay illegal because they are inevitably going to get arrested and butt raped if they are making decent money. No user who doesn't deal would possibly want it to stay illegal unless they are like djwolford and just want to be different then the majority or are lying.
Well no, because it might not be beneficial for smoking cannabis to be basically culturally expected of people like drinking is. As it is, people who want to smoke weed can go out and find it or try it with friends rather than feeling the need to do it.
If I was a smoker I wouldn't want it legalised because there would have to be an industry to mass-produce it. That's not going to pop up over night so it would have to be given to a pre-existing industry. Therefore you have 3 contenders. The alcohol industry, the tobacco industry or the pharmaceutical industry. All 3 of which have terrible reputations and would fuck everything up for the regular user.
Yes it is. Especially here.
But most people don't want that form of legalisation. They want to buy a quarter-ounce with their morning paper.
Bookmarks