Ozzy Says He Now Believes Pot Leads To Other Addictions

MTV ^ | 07.08.2003 | Robert Mancini, with reporting by Gideon Yago

[AxelPaulsenJr]

BTTT

[kdmhcdcfld]

Yeah, you're right. I was thinking more of the blank stare that Ozzy exudes throughout the show. My kids asked me about that, and I told them I thought that he had probably done so much chemical experimentation over the years that he damaged or destroyed that part of the brain which controls the automatic eye-blinking reflex. So the wheels in his mind are still spinning, but he has done damage to the part of the brain that allows him to express himself.

[lugsoul]

"Alcohol is bad and it is legal, so make pot legal."

Where did anyone except PRESIDIO9 say this? Nowhere. This is your own silly idea.

You believe that the 4th Amendment is unnecessary and that the government should not be burdened by it.

You believe that our tax dollars are best spent by pursuing low-level, low-harm crimes while abusing 4th Amendment protections and then incarcerating non-violent offenders with mandatory minimum sentences.

You believe that government policy on incarcerating its citizens should not have to be consistent or based on factual data.

You believe that intoxicants produced with the approval of government and supported by massive lobbying expenditures should get government favor over intoxicants produced by God.

You believe that Prohibition actually solves the social ills arising from substance abuse, rather than exacerbating them.

All these things can be derived from your blind support of the unchecked application of government power. But, I forgot, you won't talk about those issues, because you'll only talk about your silly statement at the top of this thread - a statement made by you and no one else. You won't talk about them because you know that your answers will conclusively demonstrate that you care not a wit about liberty.

In your own words - NEXT.

[lugsoul]

Axel, since you have cheered presidio's posts, and now bump me, I'd love to hear your response to the questions I raised to presidio in 607 and 631.

[RockyMtnMan]

What I find humerous about these threads are conservatives that support a federal WOD. Nowhere in the constitution is the fed given the authority to wage a "war" on drugs. True conservatives should advocate letting the states administer their own version of a WOD instead of allowing the fed to do it.

As it stands today if a state wants to restrict the use of alchohol they can. Why not simply let them extend the laws to limit drugs and get the fed out of the drug business? Then if Cali wants to be the hippie state they can on their own dime and states like Utah can profit from drug use fines. I think this is the only compromise between the Republican and Liberatarian views, after all we are CONSERVATIVES first and party supporters second, right?

[ActionNewsBill]

Tell a lie often enough, and at least you will believe it.

Hey, that tactic has been working for you anti-woddies.

Lying is a tactic developed by the drug warriors, beginning with DuPont and Anslinger.

Today's lies and propaganda are just variations on "Reefer Madness."

For you clueless folks out there, Reefer Madness was not a documentary based on reality, ("I smoked marijuana and turned into a bat.") although a lot of the drug warriors still believe that happens, along with a penchant for listening to jazz music, raping white women and playing that crazy piano with a maniacal grin on your face

[lugsoul]

Those people are not conservatives.

I don't disagree with your perspective. It would certainly be a start. However, I do think it is necessary that any drug fight undertaken by a state be constrained by proper limits on prosecutorial power. And I do think it is appropriate that state laws on the issue be consistent, logical, and that punishments be commensurate with the harm.

Let's take, for example, the recent Federal restriction on student aid - if you have a misdemeanor pot possession conviction, you can't get student loans. But if you are a convicted rapist, you can. Or a convicted murderer. Or if you have been convicted of loan fraud. These penalties apply only to drug crimes. I'm sure presidio loves such laws, but they make no sense. Then again, it seems he loves all laws that restrict freedom.

[lugsoul]

"Drug WARRRRIIOOOOORRS! Come out to PLAAAYY-AYYY!"

[commonerX]

You are one of the biggest idiots I have even read a reponse from. Maybe someday you will have the sense to pull your head out of your A$$. You don't need dope to be an dumpA$$ your doning just fine without it.

I figured I try your way of discussing something.

[RockyMtnMan]

I'm just waiting for the WOD to end so I can get that big fat federal tax cut. I don't give a hoot if a dumb ass druggie ODs anymore than I care if someone dies of alcohol poisoning. Let's start thinning the gene pool starting with the idiots first.

[lugsoul]

Don't you see, commonerX? The reason presidio posts like that is because he CAN'T maintain an intelligent discussion on the topic. You probably just expect too much from him.

[lugsoul]

That's a good reason. I'd rather spend prison dollars and police dollars on predators than on stoners (presidio thinks they are the same - I know it just freaks me out to see those guys hopped up on grass getting all violent and wreaking havoc). But I'd also like to see the power of the state constrained wherever possible, and this "war" has been used as a major excuse for the creeping expansion of government control over the lives of its citizens. Presidio would rather the government keep your money, and mine, and his, and spend it on these utterly ineffective efforts.

[MEGoody]

"Those who blindly support the WoD are complicit in the curtailment of freedom."

So crack down on those who are violating the 4th amendment, don't legalize drugs. The latter will not resolve the former. Those who violate the 4th admendment will still do it unless THAT problem is addressed.

[TexasCajun]

...but Daddy, I wanna be just like you!

whatsamatterwitdat Dog?

[commonerX]

You probably just expect too much from him.

Yeah I guess I do. I suppose I expected all humans by now have evolved beyond jumping up and down beating thier chest and grunting nonesense.

The one thing I can't understand is why he keeps coming back for more.

[commonerX]

You probably just expect too much from him.

Yeah I guess I do. I suppose I expected all humans by now have evolved beyond jumping up and down beating thier chest and grunting nonesense.

The one thing I can't understand is why he keeps coming back for more.

[MEGoody]

"Nowhere in the constitution is the fed given the authority to wage a "war" on drugs."

No where in the Constitution is the right to be a druggie either. What's your point?

[lugsoul]

Read the post. The arguments presented by the Government, the court decisions allowing curtailment of the 4th, and the practices developed to intrude on your liberty arise from the drug war. Why would the government want to heat scan your house or pore over your power bills if they weren't trying to catch you growing pot? Why would courts okay warrantless searches if they weren't faced with the "exigency" of drugs subjected to being flushed down the toilet? What reason would the police articulate for random roadblocks if it weren't for drugs? The envelope is being pushed in support of the drug war. Without the drug war, these practices are useless.

[MEGoody]

"I don't give a hoot if a dumb ass druggie ODs anymore than I care if someone dies of alcohol poisoning."

And I'm sure you don't care about the lives that are shattered by those who die because of drugs or alcohol.

[lugsoul]

Does the Constitution set forth limits on the power of government, or does it set forth limits on the rights of citizens?

What rights are retained by the people under the 9th Amendment? Can you name one?