No posturing. You made a false public accusation that the parents were drug dealers. Not only is it slimy and dishonest, but it could put you in a bad spot. You are foolish to disregard that.
Parents and child
Posted on 02/15/2015 7:32:34 PM PST by MeshugeMikey
Full Title: Strong cannabis causes one in four cases of psychosis: Users three times more likely to have an episode than those who have never tried it ªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªª As many as a quarter of new cases of psychotic mental illness can be blamed on super-strength strains of cannabis, scientists will warn this week. The potent form of the drug – known as ‘skunk’ – is so powerful that users are three times more likely to have a psychotic episode than those who have never tried it.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
This seems to be the crux of what you are calling your argument. You reject the vast, documented difference in harm between weed and alcohol (ie virtually nothing, versus massive), and reject calls for fairness in assessing legalization based on harm as childish.
Of course, if you're not assessing based on harm, then what are your laws going to be based on - your personal morality? We happen to have a Constitution based on personal freedom. Does that piss you off?
Because if you're going to throw out harm as the evaluative variable, and then protect extremely harmful things, while throwing people in jail for doing demonstrably harmless things, what's all that going to be based on? What? Your determination to kill those who disagree, simply because you say so? You think you're the big daddy what's gonna whoop some ass when anyone asks too many questions - and that's it? That's all you've got?
If so, you don't deserve this country. In fact, you don't even understand what this country is about. But on the other hand, there's a billion Muslims who like the way you think - a lot.
Kind of hard to tell when it is and isn't. You'll post exaggerations, hyperbole, and deliberate distortions and lies to try and aggravate people you disagree with, so nobody knows whether to believe you or not.
But a lot of stuff says they smoked tobacco. The fact that you have nothing which says they smoked weed, demonstrates that it is unlikely that they did so, for they obviously thought there was no reason why people shouldn't know they smoked tobacco. If weed was also so regarded, there should be the same proof available as there is for tobacco.
The fact that there is not, argues against it.
But I understand your panic. Because if the Founders smoked weed and created the Constitution, the planet would crack in half.
Well I can understand that too, because it would mean that time and history have been warped by some force never before encountered by mankind. More like the Universe would crack in half due to all the quantum juxtaposition going on. The cat would be both dead and alive at the same time.
I don't mind you calling me drug-addled, after all, as you pointed out, Jesus was called a drunk.
But your assessment of the harm of weed is absurd, and your belief in its minimal use is ridiculous. In all honesty, you should get out more.
Jesus wasn’t a drunk, he was falsely accused by someone.
If you aren’t drug addled, then where did I post a “assessment of the harm of weed”?
Here is some instruction from God.
Deuteronomy 14:26 (NIV)
26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice.
No posturing. You made a false public accusation that the parents were drug dealers. Not only is it slimy and dishonest, but it could put you in a bad spot. You are foolish to disregard that.
Parents and child
You characterize it as harmless, but virtually every pot smoker I know is a worthless bum upon which the rest of us have to spend money to cover his room, board and medical care. And this doesn't address the ones that do stupid things which get other people hurt... and that's with the small amount of usage currently going on!
Of course, if you're not assessing based on harm, then what are your laws going to be based on - your personal morality? We happen to have a Constitution based on personal freedom. Does that piss you off?
No we don't, and no it doesn't because it's not true. It was based on then recognized concept of Natural Law and the principles of the Christian Religion. It was never intended to Indulge hedonistic drug usage or bizarre sex practices. That is a modern day misrepresentation of the ideas on which the US Constitution was founded. A Christian based Morality system was assumed as a given, not as a "take it or leave it" buffet.
Because if you're going to throw out harm as the evaluative variable...
Not at all. Am pointing out that you cannot point to one harm as justification for another.
But on the other hand, there's a billion Muslims...
Who are going to take over if you people get your way because they will be a United Force fighting against the anarchy you created. We've already seen this movie. It's Called "China, 1930". You're "Brave New World" will last until the first gentle blow from the forces of barbarism already knocking at our gates.
Well as I said elsewhere, we know they grew it, harvested it, dried it, sold it, sometimes separated the plants by sex (and the plant's strengthing requirements haven't changed since 1790), sold it, and generally had it around. We also know they did the same exact thing with tobacco, but smoked the tobacco instead of turning the bulk of it into rope. And finally, we know that weed had been smoked to get high for thousands of years, and so it's likely they knew it had that capability.
So there's a little bit more balancing out this equation of potential smoking than you're admitting, But hey, if given all of that, you still believe they didn't smoke it - these men who smoked tobacco every day and drank alcohol far more than people do today - then Bless Your Heart.
If I don't treat this subject with the degree of seriousness which you think it deserves it's because i'm f***ing sick of discussing it in the first place, and no longer consider those people who continuously advocate for legalized drugs to be worthy of seriousness.
I have gotten lazy because i'm sick of arguing about it, but because some of us will not shut up about it (Like Gay Marriage) others are forced to respond just so these foolish ideas are given opposition.
I would much rather discuss more worthwhile things like Liberal Democrat Union member Dominance of the News and Entertainment industries which have been skewing elections in this country.
Unfortunately, I have to waste a lot of my time shooting down various nonsensical premises on the drug issue instead.
No, you don't. You choose to, and you can't lay that off on anybody else.
Krokodil drug!
Yeah, people have a "RIGHT" to do that, don't you know?
I had to look a bit to find a picture which wasn't too bad. There are far worse pictures out there regarding the effects of krokodil. Again, this is one of the least offensive ones I could find.
Smoke Tobacco, Manufacture Rope. Quite a distinction from my perspective. That they smoked Marijuana is just Libertarian Conjecture, with no real proof to support it.
Just as the Gays find that every important man in history was homosexual, so too do the Libertarians try to pin their drug indulgences on any great men for whom it could possibly be argued, might have used drugs.
No, I don't chose to. It is a necessity to voice opposition to the social forces that are intent on wrecking what bits of civilized existence we still have left.
As Trotsky said:
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Yes, I know.
EVALUATION and COMPARISON of harm is literally how the world works.
Every single decision every human being makes is based on these principles, for the simple reason that everything can be harmful in some way.
Your lie is so big, so brazen, and so absurd it destroys everything yuo base on it - which is everything you're saying here.
If the founding fathers were doing it, then everyone was doing it.
And just as people of the time talked about booze and beer and wine, and partying and so on, they would have talked about the pot and hash they were using, just like all pot heads do, except that back then there was no law against it.
Why wouldn’t everyone be using the free drug, that anyone could grow, anywhere?
Cannabis as an intoxicant never penetrated into the white world, during those thousands of years you mentioned, and when it came up, like during the Crusades, it was looked down on as something to avoid.
If pot use was open, common, and legal, then why did it quit being used by Americans? How is it that you can’t prove your pathetic accusations against our nation’s early generations?
Why is the lie so important to you?
I'm really getting tired of you dragging homosexulaity into this discussion. Please try to limit yourself to the subject at hand. I'm not interested in hearing about your obsessions.
Don't you think it's equally necessary for that voice to ring true? If nobody knows if you're actually making a verifiable point or just making things up fishing for a rise, after awhile that voice is just noise.
LOL! Like you haven't made it your trademark.
I was wondering if you noticed the mother and father in that picture (post #246) - you know, the ones you defamed. They were innocent. No one was arrested except for the nephew, who was not at the house when the toddler was burned. No drugs were found in the house, and the house was not seized.
If I were in a similar situation and you accused me of being a drug dealer in a public forum, I would own your ass in court.
They were. An they weren't writing about it for three reasons:
1. It was, as you said, free and easily available. So no one was selling it. Selling things is what people wrote about. There was no "improvement" to weed, it just was what it was.
2. It was mild. It wasn't some massive hallucinogen or made into hash like in the Holy Land. It was mild and relaxing, and that's it.
3. It was and herbal medicinal, and people didn't go off talking about medicines like they did beer, wine or tobacco - all of which were used to run buisiness and make profits. In fact, if it was discussed anywhere it was in the herbal references of the day for its medicinal uses.
In short, weed was not then, and is not now, a big deal. What has made it a big deal is political hysteria and commerical profit - the later known to have started from Dow Chemical company when it manufactured nylon and wanted to replace hemp. The latter from drug warriors who push draconian, rights-shattering drug laws and from alcohol manufacturers who see a threat to their multi-billion dollar a year businesses. Oh, and from medicine, which is terrified of losing all sorts of billions on their protected drugs from replacements with weed.
None of it is a mystery. Not a bit.
This is your Big Lie. It's actually so big, it's obscene. Because every decision every human being has ever made, and ever will make, is made through the comparison and evaluation of harm. Every one. The reason being that everything is, one way or another, harmful. And so the extremity of one harm is INDEED used to justify, or not justify, another harm, all the time - constantly.
You have no moral position in this matter. Zip. And even worse, you know it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.