User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/13/2015 11:46:28 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
I can't drive anywhere without seeing that stupid green cross or advertisements for marijuana. The average Oregon voter is a retard. The term you are looking for is demographics shift. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2015 3:03:25 AM EDT
[#2]
My home county is banning stores and manufacturing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2015 4:42:16 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My home county is banning stores and manufacturing. my home county is ok with it unless it is used in conjunction with a banjo 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2015 11:30:16 AM EDT
[#4]
Honestly could care less. More money for the state/county that doesn't have to come out of my pocket. Funny how the logic we use here with pot is the same the Libs use with the 2nd Amendment, total knee jerk. How does anything someone else does in the privacy of their own home negatively impact you?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2015 11:57:29 AM EDT
[#5]
My concern is that IT IS STILL ILLEGAL ON A FEDERAL LEVEL! How can Oregon "regulate"
 and "tax" (AKA: "profit from illegal activities") a federally illegal item
Isn't this like organized crime or something? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2015 12:07:13 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My concern is that IT IS STILL ILLEGAL ON A FEDERAL LEVEL! How can Oregon "regulate" and "tax" (AKA: "profit from illegal activities") a federally illegal item
Isn't this like organized crime or something? I doubt that it will remain illegal on the federal level much longer. They are already taxing it in Colorado and Washington and it has been extremely beneficial from what I understand. Money talks and pot is big money, all these old timber communities starving for jobs now at least have another resource. The entire drug war IMO was a waste of money and time, make them all legal, it's not a government issue at all. Many people here state they are pro-freedom, but you can't be pro-freedom and wage a hypocritical war on drug users. Even in alcohol prohibition we didn't persecute the user, we went after the bootleggers. IMO I would rather see police spend their time on busting meth labs than trying to hassle some people over pot, especially when alcohol is legal and socially acceptable, but far more harmful. Constitution is written on hemp, George Washington grew hemp, and it's a major part of American agricultural history up until recently in our history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2015 2:39:57 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I doubt that it will remain illegal on the federal level much longer. They are already taxing it in Colorado and Washington and it has been extremely beneficial from what I understand. Money talks and pot is big money, all these old timber communities starving for jobs now at least have another resource. The entire drug war IMO was a waste of money and time, make them all legal, it's not a government issue at all. Many people here state they are pro-freedom, but you can't be pro-freedom and wage a hypocritical war on drug users. Even in alcohol prohibition we didn't persecute the user, we went after the bootleggers. IMO I would rather see police spend their time on busting meth labs than trying to hassle some people over pot, especially when alcohol is legal and socially acceptable, but far more harmful. Constitution is written on hemp, George Washington grew hemp, and it's a major part of American agricultural history up until recently in our history. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My concern is that IT IS STILL ILLEGAL ON A FEDERAL LEVEL! How can Oregon "regulate" and "tax" (AKA: "profit from illegal activities") a federally illegal item
Isn't this like organized crime or something? I doubt that it will remain illegal on the federal level much longer. They are already taxing it in Colorado and Washington and it has been extremely beneficial from what I understand. Money talks and pot is big money, all these old timber communities starving for jobs now at least have another resource. The entire drug war IMO was a waste of money and time, make them all legal, it's not a government issue at all. Many people here state they are pro-freedom, but you can't be pro-freedom and wage a hypocritical war on drug users. Even in alcohol prohibition we didn't persecute the user, we went after the bootleggers. IMO I would rather see police spend their time on busting meth labs than trying to hassle some people over pot, especially when alcohol is legal and socially acceptable, but far more harmful. Constitution is written on hemp, George Washington grew hemp, and it's a major part of American agricultural history up until recently in our history. I don't think you get what I'm saying. You think I'm just against pot. What I'm saying is how can a state government, actually a "law enforcement agency", get involved with profitting from the commission of a crime? Basically it is like all the state troopers now work for the mafia or something. Sure, it may be on the verge of being made legal under federal law, but it is still illegal NOW! Look at other things that would be the same: State taxes you to allow you to build new machineguns. State taxes you to allow you to not pay federal income tax. oh wait... it's only ok for states or cities to endorse breaking federal laws if it only pertains to illegal aliens or drugs. 
ETA: IMO, if so many states feel this way the correct way to handle it would be for the pro pot states to get together and petition the federal government to legallize it, not to flagerently violate the law and even profit from it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2015 4:39:28 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My concern is that IT IS STILL ILLEGAL ON A FEDERAL LEVEL! How can Oregon "regulate" and "tax" (AKA: "profit from illegal activities") a federally illegal item
Isn't this like organized crime or something? Have you not met our local politicians.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2015 9:08:53 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Honestly could care less. More money for the state/county that doesn't have to come out of my pocket. Funny how the logic we use here with pot is the same the Libs use with the 2nd Amendment, total knee jerk. How does anything someone else does in the privacy of their own home negatively impact you? This will be a tax loser. What taxes are they collecting today? I honestly don't understand the libertarian argument for legalizing marijuana RIGHT NOW. These stoners will sit at home collecting checks from the government because they can't pass a drug test to work. I understand the "live and let live" stuff but let's prioritize. Hippies can live their lifestyle as soon as I can stop subsidizing it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2015 3:26:58 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This will be a tax loser. What taxes are they collecting today? I honestly don't understand the libertarian argument for legalizing marijuana RIGHT NOW. These stoners will sit at home collecting checks from the government because they can't pass a drug test to work. I understand the "live and let live" stuff but let's prioritize. Hippies can live their lifestyle as soon as I can stop subsidizing it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Honestly could care less. More money for the state/county that doesn't have to come out of my pocket. Funny how the logic we use here with pot is the same the Libs use with the 2nd Amendment, total knee jerk. How does anything someone else does in the privacy of their own home negatively impact you? This will be a tax loser. What taxes are they collecting today? I honestly don't understand the libertarian argument for legalizing marijuana RIGHT NOW. These stoners will sit at home collecting checks from the government because they can't pass a drug test to work. I understand the "live and let live" stuff but let's prioritize. Hippies can live their lifestyle as soon as I can stop subsidizing it. I can understand the argument of stop subsidizing bad behavior BEFORE anything else, but it works across the board. Stop flagrant welfare abuse, but for God's sake leave people (many of them otherwise good, law abiding people) to do what they please. Its none of your concern should someone get home from work and have a beer, a smoke, or a toke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2015 4:11:46 PM EDT
[#11]
The decision to make pot legal or illegal should reside with the voters of a state and there should be no federal prohibition. Having said that I am totally comfortable with states having the prerogative for it to be illegal. I personally don't see any benefit to legalized pot. Washington state has already demonstrated an increase in DUI since legalized pot. That is indeed a burden on the preponderance of the citzenry because increased enforcement cost more in tax revenue .
It's ok to do as you please as long as it does not infringe on your fellow man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2015 8:20:04 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This will be a tax loser. What taxes are they collecting today? I honestly don't understand the libertarian argument for legalizing marijuana RIGHT NOW. These stoners will sit at home collecting checks from the government because they can't pass a drug test to work. I understand the "live and let live" stuff but let's prioritize. Hippies can live their lifestyle as soon as I can stop subsidizing it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Honestly could care less. More money for the state/county that doesn't have to come out of my pocket. Funny how the logic we use here with pot is the same the Libs use with the 2nd Amendment, total knee jerk. How does anything someone else does in the privacy of their own home negatively impact you? This will be a tax loser. What taxes are they collecting today? I honestly don't understand the libertarian argument for legalizing marijuana RIGHT NOW. These stoners will sit at home collecting checks from the government because they can't pass a drug test to work. I understand the "live and let live" stuff but let's prioritize. Hippies can live their lifestyle as soon as I can stop subsidizing it. Making pot legal will encourage more employers to hire people who can't pee clean for pot, assuming that they can come to work clear headed. If they gave me an in depth alcohol test at work, I couldn't test clean the next day. It doesn't mean I'm showing up to work wasted. I know plenty of pot consumers that smoke up after work. It's their way of winding down after a long day on the job, much like I do when I pour a cold beer from my six tap beer fridge. I know dozens of pot smokers in Oregon and only a few are unemployed. The ones that are unemployed have more addictive habits beyond weed though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2015 11:53:19 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Making pot legal will encourage more employers to hire people who can't pee clean for pot, assuming that they can come to work clear headed. If they gave me an in depth alcohol test at work, I couldn't test clean the next day. It doesn't mean I'm showing up to work wasted. I know plenty of pot consumers that smoke up after work. It's their way of winding down after a long day on the job, much like I do when I pour a cold beer from my six tap beer fridge. I know dozens of pot smokers in Oregon and only a few are unemployed. The ones that are unemployed have more addictive habits beyond weed though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honestly could care less. More money for the state/county that doesn't have to come out of my pocket. Funny how the logic we use here with pot is the same the Libs use with the 2nd Amendment, total knee jerk. How does anything someone else does in the privacy of their own home negatively impact you? This will be a tax loser. What taxes are they collecting today? I honestly don't understand the libertarian argument for legalizing marijuana RIGHT NOW. These stoners will sit at home collecting checks from the government because they can't pass a drug test to work. I understand the "live and let live" stuff but let's prioritize. Hippies can live their lifestyle as soon as I can stop subsidizing it. Making pot legal will encourage more employers to hire people who can't pee clean for pot, assuming that they can come to work clear headed. If they gave me an in depth alcohol test at work, I couldn't test clean the next day. It doesn't mean I'm showing up to work wasted. I know plenty of pot consumers that smoke up after work. It's their way of winding down after a long day on the job, much like I do when I pour a cold beer from my six tap beer fridge. I know dozens of pot smokers in Oregon and only a few are unemployed. The ones that are unemployed have more addictive habits beyond weed though. This exactly, the majority of pot smokers I know are not dirty hippies or welfare abusing low lifes, but more conservative hard working folks who just smoke some pot rather than have a cocktail at home. Get really tired of the double standard anti's try to play, you cannot be pro-rights and deny someone the right to self medicate in their own home. Legal or not, Americans smoke pot, likely way more people than you think, but they do and upholding a ban is only going to fund black markets, it's that simple. You want it illegal, then don't complain about the drug dealer slinging pot in your neighborhood because you are the one that put him there. You think because it's illegal people are going to stop? The same way violent criminals will just stop buying guns because it's illegal right? Great logic. I fail to see how additional revenue is a bad thing. Anyway, it's legal now, so get over it. It's sad that some Americans allow their private sector jobs to dictate their life at home away from work. What I do in my own time away from work is none of their or anyone else's business except my own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2015 1:01:48 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My concern is that IT IS STILL ILLEGAL ON A FEDERAL LEVEL! How can Oregon "regulate" and "tax" (AKA: "profit from illegal activities") a federally illegal item
Isn't this like organized crime or something? Illegal immigration is still illegal under the federal level. So is storing classified emails and info on your 'private' server. So what is your point? Our current leadership picks and chooses what laws to enforce. Right now they choose not to enforce. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2015 12:34:16 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Honestly could care less. More money for the state/county that doesn't have to come out of my pocket. Funny how the logic we use here with pot is the same the Libs use with the 2nd Amendment, total knee jerk. How does anything someone else does in the privacy of their own home negatively impact you? It won't stay in the home- look at downtown Seattle where blatant open use is rampant and not enforced. It is a big detractor to tourist Imagine you are out and about with your family and have to walk through clouds of that crap and shield your kids from it. It needs to be enforced properly |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2015 2:19:44 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This exactly, the majority of pot smokers I know are not dirty hippies or welfare abusing low lifes, but more conservative hard working folks who just smoke some pot rather than have a cocktail at home. Get really tired of the double standard anti's try to play, you cannot be pro-rights and deny someone the right to self medicate in their own home. Legal or not, Americans smoke pot, likely way more people than you think, but they do and upholding a ban is only going to fund black markets, it's that simple. You want it illegal, then don't complain about the drug dealer slinging pot in your neighborhood because you are the one that put him there. You think because it's illegal people are going to stop? The same way violent criminals will just stop buying guns because it's illegal right? Great logic. I fail to see how additional revenue is a bad thing. Anyway, it's legal now, so get over it. It's sad that some Americans allow their private sector jobs to dictate their life at home away from work. What I do in my own time away from work is none of their or anyone else's business except my own. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honestly could care less. More money for the state/county that doesn't have to come out of my pocket. Funny how the logic we use here with pot is the same the Libs use with the 2nd Amendment, total knee jerk. How does anything someone else does in the privacy of their own home negatively impact you? This will be a tax loser. What taxes are they collecting today? I honestly don't understand the libertarian argument for legalizing marijuana RIGHT NOW. These stoners will sit at home collecting checks from the government because they can't pass a drug test to work. I understand the "live and let live" stuff but let's prioritize. Hippies can live their lifestyle as soon as I can stop subsidizing it. Making pot legal will encourage more employers to hire people who can't pee clean for pot, assuming that they can come to work clear headed. If they gave me an in depth alcohol test at work, I couldn't test clean the next day. It doesn't mean I'm showing up to work wasted. I know plenty of pot consumers that smoke up after work. It's their way of winding down after a long day on the job, much like I do when I pour a cold beer from my six tap beer fridge. I know dozens of pot smokers in Oregon and only a few are unemployed. The ones that are unemployed have more addictive habits beyond weed though. This exactly, the majority of pot smokers I know are not dirty hippies or welfare abusing low lifes, but more conservative hard working folks who just smoke some pot rather than have a cocktail at home. Get really tired of the double standard anti's try to play, you cannot be pro-rights and deny someone the right to self medicate in their own home. Legal or not, Americans smoke pot, likely way more people than you think, but they do and upholding a ban is only going to fund black markets, it's that simple. You want it illegal, then don't complain about the drug dealer slinging pot in your neighborhood because you are the one that put him there. You think because it's illegal people are going to stop? The same way violent criminals will just stop buying guns because it's illegal right? Great logic. I fail to see how additional revenue is a bad thing. Anyway, it's legal now, so get over it. It's sad that some Americans allow their private sector jobs to dictate their life at home away from work. What I do in my own time away from work is none of their or anyone else's business except my own. Regardless of whether or not I agree with you, your statement that if something is illegal and someone CHOOSES to take a course of action which violates that law then somehow the responsibility for that choice lies on the shoulders of another who did not choose to break the law seems terribly flawed to me. But maybe I don't have any of that aforementioned "great logic." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2015 4:04:58 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Regardless of whether or not I agree with you, your statement that if something is illegal and someone CHOOSES to take a course of action which violates that law then somehow the responsibility for that choice lies on the shoulders of another who did not choose to break the law seems terribly flawed to me. But maybe I don't have any of that aforementioned "great logic." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honestly could care less. More money for the state/county that doesn't have to come out of my pocket. Funny how the logic we use here with pot is the same the Libs use with the 2nd Amendment, total knee jerk. How does anything someone else does in the privacy of their own home negatively impact you? This will be a tax loser. What taxes are they collecting today? I honestly don't understand the libertarian argument for legalizing marijuana RIGHT NOW. These stoners will sit at home collecting checks from the government because they can't pass a drug test to work. I understand the "live and let live" stuff but let's prioritize. Hippies can live their lifestyle as soon as I can stop subsidizing it. Making pot legal will encourage more employers to hire people who can't pee clean for pot, assuming that they can come to work clear headed. If they gave me an in depth alcohol test at work, I couldn't test clean the next day. It doesn't mean I'm showing up to work wasted. I know plenty of pot consumers that smoke up after work. It's their way of winding down after a long day on the job, much like I do when I pour a cold beer from my six tap beer fridge. I know dozens of pot smokers in Oregon and only a few are unemployed. The ones that are unemployed have more addictive habits beyond weed though. This exactly, the majority of pot smokers I know are not dirty hippies or welfare abusing low lifes, but more conservative hard working folks who just smoke some pot rather than have a cocktail at home. Get really tired of the double standard anti's try to play, you cannot be pro-rights and deny someone the right to self medicate in their own home. Legal or not, Americans smoke pot, likely way more people than you think, but they do and upholding a ban is only going to fund black markets, it's that simple. You want it illegal, then don't complain about the drug dealer slinging pot in your neighborhood because you are the one that put him there. You think because it's illegal people are going to stop? The same way violent criminals will just stop buying guns because it's illegal right? Great logic. I fail to see how additional revenue is a bad thing. Anyway, it's legal now, so get over it. It's sad that some Americans allow their private sector jobs to dictate their life at home away from work. What I do in my own time away from work is none of their or anyone else's business except my own. Regardless of whether or not I agree with you, your statement that if something is illegal and someone CHOOSES to take a course of action which violates that law then somehow the responsibility for that choice lies on the shoulders of another who did not choose to break the law seems terribly flawed to me. But maybe I don't have any of that aforementioned "great logic." You're putting words in my mouth. What I stated was that if you are not neutral on the subject but actively anti (pro-prohibition) you are responsible for consequences. I made no mention about neutral citizens, I have no issue with people who don't want it around their children, and it is something that should be regulated. It should be legalized, regulated and taxed, if you are against that, all you are going to do is support a black market economy. What I do have a problem with is people here who think that the vagrant they saw down at Skidmore Fountain smoking a joint is the only type of person who uses cannabis, and that you somehow think you have the right to take that away from people in the privacy of their own home. Gross stereotype and double standard, people smoking in downtown Seattle are an outlier of the general population of cannabis users. The same way all these idiots with no BUIS standing guard give gun owners a bad image because they are in the spotlight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2015 12:50:49 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
It should be legalized, regulated and taxed, Being a small government conservative I'm against that as well. I don't need the government to tax and regulate my home grown strawberries. I do think that marijuana should be prohibited just like I think home grown meth labs done in the privacy of someone's house should be prohibited. And I never said that I think I have "the right" to take anything away from people. I voted "no", I'm pretty sure that was an option on that ballot measure. I'm opposed to legalized pot, that makes me in the minority in Oregon. That's fine. That still doesn't mean I can't call "yes" voters stupid hippies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2015 12:10:22 PM EDT
[#19]
Just going to have to agree to disagree then. If you want to stereotype by grouping all yes voters into a "stupid hippie" category, by all means, go for it. However, it is pretty grossly ignorant to assume that it's just the dirty liberal hippies that voted it in.
People are tired of living in impoverished communities, I for one am tired of funding the benefits wagon for all the welfare abusers in the area. To turn down the potential income from tax of cannabis just fuels the problem at this point, at least this way we have another cash crop besides timber (which is steadily on the decline). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2015 3:37:47 PM EDT
[#20]
Yea, fuck more freedoms.
I want more laws!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2015 5:49:36 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Illegal immigration is still illegal under the federal level. So is storing classified emails and info on your 'private' server. So what is your point? Our current leadership picks and chooses what laws to enforce. Right now they choose not to enforce. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My concern is that IT IS STILL ILLEGAL ON A FEDERAL LEVEL! How can Oregon "regulate" and "tax" (AKA: "profit from illegal activities") a federally illegal item
Isn't this like organized crime or something? Illegal immigration is still illegal under the federal level. So is storing classified emails and info on your 'private' server. So what is your point? Our current leadership picks and chooses what laws to enforce. Right now they choose not to enforce. So all the money the state gets from this is DRUG MONEY. Hypothetical: So 2 days after Jeb Bush becomes president of the united states he tells DEA to go after any state that profitted from the sale of pot, RICO and all that. Seems risky and stupid to me. I still just can't wrap my head around a government agency doing something illegal like this just based on the fact that AT THE MOMENT the president has told DEA not to waste time on it. Plenty of states were still doing it while DEA was actively raiding those medical shops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2015 7:53:51 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
I can't drive anywhere without seeing that stupid green cross or advertisements for marijuana. The average Oregon voter is a retard. That freedom.. she's a bitch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2015 10:40:02 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That freedom.. she's a bitch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I can't drive anywhere without seeing that stupid green cross or advertisements for marijuana. The average Oregon voter is a retard. That freedom.. she's a bitch. I can't build a deck or carport on my own property without begging for permission and paying for the privilege but let's make weed the "freedom" cause we champion. I honestly don't understand the priority. All you freedom lovers go back to filling out your 4473, paying OSP $10 and waiting for "approval" for your rights. At least you have the freedom to get high while you wait! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2015 10:49:20 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't build a deck or carport on my own property without begging for permission and paying for the privilege but let's make weed the "freedom" cause we champion. I honestly don't understand the priority. All you freedom lovers go back to filling out your 4473, paying OSP $10 and waiting for "approval" for your rights. At least you have the freedom to get high while you wait! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can't drive anywhere without seeing that stupid green cross or advertisements for marijuana. The average Oregon voter is a retard. That freedom.. she's a bitch. I can't build a deck or carport on my own property without begging for permission and paying for the privilege but let's make weed the "freedom" cause we champion. I honestly don't understand the priority. All you freedom lovers go back to filling out your 4473, paying OSP $10 and waiting for "approval" for your rights. At least you have the freedom to get high while you wait! At the risk of sounding cliche, Two wrongs don't make a right. Of course the infringement of the 2A is wrong, nobody is saying otherwise. I think weed is fucking stupid, but I think it's even more stupid to tell a free adult what he can do to his own body. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2015 11:02:53 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At the risk of sounding cliche, Two wrongs don't make a right. Of course the infringement of the 2A is wrong, nobody is saying otherwise. I think weed is fucking stupid, but I think it's even more stupid to tell a free adult what he can do to his own body. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can't drive anywhere without seeing that stupid green cross or advertisements for marijuana. The average Oregon voter is a retard. That freedom.. she's a bitch. I can't build a deck or carport on my own property without begging for permission and paying for the privilege but let's make weed the "freedom" cause we champion. I honestly don't understand the priority. All you freedom lovers go back to filling out your 4473, paying OSP $10 and waiting for "approval" for your rights. At least you have the freedom to get high while you wait! At the risk of sounding cliche, Two wrongs don't make a right. Of course the infringement of the 2A is wrong, nobody is saying otherwise. I think weed is fucking stupid, but I think it's even more stupid to tell a free adult what he can do to his own body. I like your sigline. I tolerate hippies, I just wish they would go away. My position lost the vote in Oregon, I don't dispute that. I'm just here to call those voters stupid. I wish them good luck when they have teenage kids. I also don't think that consenting adults should be able to cook/use meth in the privacy of their own homes. I guess I'm not libertarian enough to think that drug legalization comes before eliminating the federal department of education. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2015 11:29:40 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like your sigline. I tolerate hippies, I just wish they would go away. My position lost the vote in Oregon, I don't dispute that. I'm just here to call those voters stupid. I wish them good luck when they have teenage kids. I also don't think that consenting adults should be able to cook/use meth in the privacy of their own homes. I guess I'm not libertarian enough to think that drug legalization comes before eliminating the federal department of education. Kids have an easier time obtaining drugs than they do alcohol because the only people selling the drugs are doing it illegally. Most people selling alcohol would rather not face the fines or lose their license for selling to kids. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2015 1:06:12 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like your sigline. I tolerate hippies, I just wish they would go away. My position lost the vote in Oregon, I don't dispute that. I'm just here to call those voters stupid. I wish them good luck when they have teenage kids. I also don't think that consenting adults should be able to cook/use meth in the privacy of their own homes. I guess I'm not libertarian enough to think that drug legalization comes before eliminating the federal department of education. Again, apples and oranges.. the states are legalizing, not the Feds. I think most here would be in favor of drastically reforming or eliminating the Fed Department of Education, and returning that money and decision-making to the states as well. Also, believing in liberty doesn't mean believing you have the right to infringe on the freedom or safety of others.. smoking a joint in your house and having a meth lab in it are two completely different animals in that regard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2015 1:27:44 PM EDT
[#28]
When I was a teenager, drugs were very easy to get. One phone call and the guy would deliver. Alcohol was much harder to get.
Now, as an adult and non-pot smoker/non-drug user, I think they should legalize just about everything. The war on drugs has obviously been a complete failure, when anybody can get any drug they want. The only things the war on drugs has accomplished are to create a large black market, cause a lot of violent crime, and cost a whole lot of money. If drugs were legalized, all of the drug dealers would be out of business, the gangs and crime would not have their funding or their reason for fighting, and a lot of legitimate business and tax revenue would result. I say this as a person who believes that recreational drugs are bad. They are almost always bad for the people who use them, and those people would be happier, healthier, and live better lives without those drugs. The people have voted with their dollars and behavior that they want drugs. I would prefer a free country, where people are free to do as they wish with their lives and their bodies, rather than a police state, where the government can ban anything at will, and imprison people who are harming no one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2015 9:09:54 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When I was a teenager, drugs were very easy to get. One phone call and the guy would deliver. Alcohol was much harder to get. Now, as an adult and non-pot smoker/non-drug user, I think they should legalize just about everything. The war on drugs has obviously been a complete failure, when anybody can get any drug they want. The only things the war on drugs has accomplished are to create a large black market, cause a lot of violent crime, and cost a whole lot of money. If drugs were legalized, all of the drug dealers would be out of business, the gangs and crime would not have their funding or their reason for fighting, and a lot of legitimate business and tax revenue would result. I say this as a person who believes that recreational drugs are bad. They are almost always bad for the people who use them, and those people would be happier, healthier, and live better lives without those drugs. The people have voted with their dollars and behavior that they want drugs. I would prefer a free country, where people are free to do as they wish with their lives and their bodies, rather than a police state, where the government can ban anything at will, and imprison people who are harming no one. If you're saying that legalizing all drugs would in turn make all the gangs shake hands with one another and say, "hey, no hard feelings" and their members go get legitimate jobs and become productive members of society, then that is the dumbest fucking thing in this entire thread so far. But you may not be saying that. I've been accused of putting words in people's mouths once already. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2015 11:42:45 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you're saying that legalizing all drugs would in turn make all the gangs shake hands with one another and say, "hey, no hard feelings" and their members go get legitimate jobs and become productive members of society, then that is the dumbest fucking thing in this entire thread so far. But you may not be saying that. I've been accused of putting words in people's mouths once already. Gangs fight over drug dealing territory. Those gangs are funded by drug money. When the money dries up, they won't have anything else to do with drugs (other than being users like everybody else). There will still be poor criminal types, but their weapons are funded by drug money, and their organizational structure is designed around the drug market, which is their largest source of income. There will always be poor people for whom crime and violence is a lifestyle, but there are also a lot who get into gangs and drug dealing because there's money in it, and they wouldn't if it wasn't there. Legalizing drugs wouldn't eliminate street crime, but it would reduce it substantially. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2015 1:28:23 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gangs fight over drug dealing territory. Those gangs are funded by drug money. When the money dries up, they won't have anything else to do with drugs (other than being users like everybody else). There will still be poor criminal types, but their weapons are funded by drug money, and their organizational structure is designed around the drug market, which is their largest source of income. There will always be poor people for whom crime and violence is a lifestyle, but there are also a lot who get into gangs and drug dealing because there's money in it, and they wouldn't if it wasn't there. Legalizing drugs wouldn't eliminate street crime, but it would reduce it substantially. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you're saying that legalizing all drugs would in turn make all the gangs shake hands with one another and say, "hey, no hard feelings" and their members go get legitimate jobs and become productive members of society, then that is the dumbest fucking thing in this entire thread so far. But you may not be saying that. I've been accused of putting words in people's mouths once already. Gangs fight over drug dealing territory. Those gangs are funded by drug money. When the money dries up, they won't have anything else to do with drugs (other than being users like everybody else). There will still be poor criminal types, but their weapons are funded by drug money, and their organizational structure is designed around the drug market, which is their largest source of income. There will always be poor people for whom crime and violence is a lifestyle, but there are also a lot who get into gangs and drug dealing because there's money in it, and they wouldn't if it wasn't there. Legalizing drugs wouldn't eliminate street crime, but it would reduce it substantially. I believe it. I watched a documentory about the prohibition where the said the Italian Mafia got rich and rose to power because of it, also (IIRC) the kennedy family got their wealth from being rum runners during prohibition. The way this state and the country is going, legalizing drugs and criminalizing guns, I guess the gangs will move into gun running.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2015 11:49:49 PM EDT
[#32]
Making something legal makes it more common. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. As for the kids argument, that's where I'm coming from right now. I have a 15 year old grounded because all he wants to do is smoke pot. And believe me, in his mind it has been legitimized because now it's legal. He also notes that the pot shops dope is much more expensive than the stuff you can buy at school.
I care less about the adults, as long as I'm not subsidizing their life, but we sure aren't doing our kids any favors with this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2015 2:01:15 AM EDT
[#33]
As a former Oregonian, living in Washington now for decades, I think both states have gone too liberal and are barely recognizable as the place I grew up. Not impressed with this added freedom that many will abuse instead of using their time and their money productively. Lessening the legal penalty for possession I could go along with, medical use I could go along with, this is one more step too far in the wrong direction.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:58:42 PM EDT
[#34]
Up with hope. Down with dope.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:05:49 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yea, fuck more freedoms. I want more laws!!!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yea, fuck more freedoms. I want more laws!!!! Quoted:
That freedom.. she's a bitch. Ironically the same people who want to legalize Pot and harbor illegal aliens and the same ones that want to ban our guns. I'm all for freedom, I think everything should be legal if it doesn't harm another person. While this state violates federal drug laws they are making and enforcing more gun laws. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 1:00:09 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ironically the same people who want to legalize Pot and harbor illegal aliens and the same ones that want to ban our guns. I'm all for freedom, I think everything should be legal if it doesn't harm another person. While this state violates federal drug laws they are making and enforcing more gun laws. I agree with you on that. I wish we had a viable political party that was pro-freedom, instead of two which fight over which particular freedoms they want to allow us/take from us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 11:56:18 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree with you on that. I wish we had a viable political party that was pro-freedom, instead of two which fight over which particular freedoms they want to allow us/take from us while arguing over which side is the freedom takers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ironically the same people who want to legalize Pot and harbor illegal aliens and the same ones that want to ban our guns. I'm all for freedom, I think everything should be legal if it doesn't harm another person. While this state violates federal drug laws they are making and enforcing more gun laws. I agree with you on that. I wish we had a viable political party that was pro-freedom, instead of two which fight over which particular freedoms they want to allow us/take from us while arguing over which side is the freedom takers. You forgot an important part there, so I helped you out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2015 9:57:01 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Making something legal makes it more common. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. As for the kids argument, that's where I'm coming from right now. I have a 15 year old grounded because all he wants to do is smoke pot. And believe me, in his mind it has been legitimized because now it's legal. He also notes that the pot shops dope is much more expensive than the stuff you can buy at school. I care less about the adults, as long as I'm not subsidizing their life, but we sure aren't doing our kids any favors with this. Ah, so it's "for the children." Hmm, where have I heard that rationale before? It absolutely, positively amazes me when pro-gun guys argue against pot legalization by employing many of the exact same logical fallacies anti-gunners use in their attempts to ban guns. Daniel, it sucks that your kid likes the weed. Because kids have no business smoking it. But frankly, that's not a marijuana issue...it's a parenting issue. Poor parenting, to be specific. If you disagree, then is it safe for me to assume that if a young gang banger shoots someone with a gun, you believe that's the fault of the gun rather than a poor upbringing? The conservative position on these issues is this: inanimate objects, like guns and weed, are not inherently good or bad. And that's because...they're inanimate objects. However, when bad or misguided people get ahold of these objects, they can indeed be used for bad or evil purposes. In such cases, we should hold the people accountable; not the inanimate objects. Many people who think they hold a conservative position on marijuana, actually don't. Their position is best described for what it actually is: Statist. But they're often OK with their statism because, well, because it's their own statism. Everyone knows statism is only bad when other people engage in it, right? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2015 10:07:49 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It absolutely, positively amazes me when pro-gun guys argue against pot legalization by employing many of the exact same logical fallacies anti-gunners use in their attempts to ban guns. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Making something legal makes it more common. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. As for the kids argument, that's where I'm coming from right now. I have a 15 year old grounded because all he wants to do is smoke pot. And believe me, in his mind it has been legitimized because now it's legal. He also notes that the pot shops dope is much more expensive than the stuff you can buy at school. I care less about the adults, as long as I'm not subsidizing their life, but we sure aren't doing our kids any favors with this. It absolutely, positively amazes me when pro-gun guys argue against pot legalization by employing many of the exact same logical fallacies anti-gunners use in their attempts to ban guns. I stopped being amazed long ago. People want freedom for themselves to live their own lives - but loathe letting others live THEIRS unmolested. My personal favorite in this area, though, is the, "Yeah, I smoked it in High School, but it's STRONGER now!" hypocrite. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2015 1:34:25 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I stopped being amazed long ago. People want freedom for themselves to live their own lives - but loathe letting others live THEIRS unmolested. Yup, that’s something members of both the far-left and the far-right have in common. Both groups are more than happy to embrace nanny-state government, just as long as that government is doing something of which they personally approve. I’ve seen it many times. It’s almost as funny as the intellectually dishonest and ignorant pronouncement that anyone who votes “yes” for marijuana legalization must be a “stupid hippie”. I’m pretty sure Pat Buchanan, the late William F. Buckley, Milton Friedman, Andrew Napolitano, Glenn Beck and a host of other notable conservative thinkers who support marijuana legalization would not describe themselves as “stupid hippies”. It’s almost as if the epithet of “stupid hippie” serves only as a desperate, grasping-at-straws slur on par with calling someone a “poo poo head”. That’ll show ‘em!
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
