Ozzy Says He Now Believes Pot Leads To Other Addictions

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

[Queen Jadis]

I'm surprised that Ozzy would even have the mindset to come to this conclusion. "The Osbournes" was on MTV last night, and VH1 was airing "I Love The 80s" (1982) at the same time. VH1 had a few minutes of footage of Ozzy from '82, and I used this as an opportunity to flip between the two channels to show my kids the difference between the 1982 Ozzy and the 2003 Ozzy so they'd understand what drugs can do to a person. What a golden opportunity that was! 1982 Ozzy - Very coherent...2003 Ozzy - Lights are on but nobody's home!

Did the same channel "flipping" as you. I agree with you to a point. I think someone is home but the lights are not working. Meaning, I think his mind/thoughts are "sound" but he has trashed his synapses to the extent that his thoughts cannot be expressed articulately through speech.

[Redcloak]

Perhaps Ozzy is Batboy's biological father.

[presidio9]

People have to repeat the point to you because you can't support your arguement with rational answers. You can only use generalizations and labels. NEXT

Not at all. My answers have been quite simple and entirely rational. I just enjoy hearing you guys hysterically explain how alcohol is so bad, but legalizing drugs will solve that problem. All of you amateur civil liberties lawyers keep trying to change the subject. Admittedly, I can't help addressing the fantastically moronic idea that kids will no longer have access to drugs when drugs are legal, but as for the rest, I'm not interested. All of you have yet to provide a compelling case for legalizing drugs. Next?

[presidio9]

Oh yeah, you want to know what else I like? The fact that every time one of you stoners ask the same "pithy" question that has been asked 1,000 times before (this is an old debate, my friend, there are NO new points) this thread gets bumped. It is a pain trying to keep up with the two handfuls of you who have made legalized drugs such an important issue in your lives (how pathetic is THAT?) but it is worth it to try. Why? Because no lurkers read 500 response threads that just keep repeating themselves. But they do read the article. And EVERY time you make your moronic point, and article titled "Ozzy Says He Now Believes Pot Leads To Other Addictions," gets bumped. So go for it.

[presidio9]

bump

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Yeah, that Ozzie has a lot on the ball doesn't he.

Well that at least which he hasn't already toked away using illegal drugs all his life.

He's a real role model for conservatives to emulate don't you think? "Ozzy sez : Pot bad.....conservatives cheer

We always cheer and celebrate the Truth.

Ozzie....consider nominating him for Governor of California."

Now I have it confirmed that you are not operating on all pistons. We true conservative Republicans will be nominating Ah-Nold for that esteemed position.

For your particular edification, I suppose it will be necessary to explain that, "Ah-Nold" stands for Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[presidio9]

bump

[headsonpikes]

Propaganda bump.

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

That must be a comfort.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Like most statists, you only understand laws in terms of their punitive aspects. How sad.

Oh, now there you go using the "S" word, shame on you. And what is truly sad, is that instead of being out there attempting to change the "punative" laws, you are in here debating endlessly the same arguments over and over again.

Good luck for you will need it, 3 of the last 4 pot issues brought to the voters, were voted down.

[ActionNewsBill]

We true conservative Republicans will be nominating Ah-Nold for that esteemed position.

As much as I admire Mr Schwartznegger's acting abilities, only a fool would believe that he is a conservative.

I don't live in California, but geez....don't you guys have a conservative candidate you can run out there?

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Do you understand my problem now?

Yeah, I do, what is tragic is that you don't.

[lugsoul]

"Not at all. My answers have been quite simple and entirely rational. I just enjoy hearing you guys hysterically explain how alcohol is so bad, but legalizing drugs will solve that problem."

Perhaps when you give answers. But when you are asked serious questions that go directly to the real issue - not that legalizing drugs will make alcohol issues better (which is a silly characterization - you have not seen anyone make such an argument), but that there are serious policy considerations arising from the WoD that have nothing to do with whether marijuana is "bad," but rather are focused on appropriate use of government resources, appropriate reasons for curtailing the freedom of Americans and eroding the Bill or Rights, and the extent to which the "harm" resulting from use of a substance serves as a basis for focusing a substantial portion of the criminal justice system on such use, and how much "harm" is necessary to justify such focus - you just avoid the questions.

Why not simply respond to 607 and 632?

[presidio9]

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

So now I'm putting words in Ozzie's mouth? Soory heads, he really said those things.

Bump

[lugsoul]

Whoops - 607 and 631.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

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

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

[presidio9]

But when you are asked serious questions that go directly to the real issue - not that legalizing drugs will make alcohol issues better (which is a silly characterization - you have not seen anyone make such an argument),

Um dopey, that is the only point that I am interested in talking about. Find somebody else to talk about your other "issues." If you can.

And that is EXACTLY the logic that you dreamers are using "Alcohol is bad and it is legal, so make pot legal."

Talk about nuts.

Bump

[presidio9]

Bump

[headsonpikes]

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

[lugsoul]

Perhaps you should read the posts. A fair number of these posters are not concerned about drugs - they are concerned about freedom. Anyone who denies that the prosecution of drug cases has been the single greatest area of erosion of 4th Amendment rights just isn't keeping up with the law. It is not an uncommon view among legal experts that the erosion is so complete that there is now a "drug exception" to the 4th Amendment - that you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures EXCEPT in drug cases. This jurisprudence sets the stage for the complete eradication of the 4th. Everywhere you see the envelope being pushed - heat scans, random roadblocks, mandatory testing, warrantless searches, etc. - it is being pushed in the drug arena. Those who blindly support the WoD are complicit in the curtailment of freedom. And, last time I checked, freedom was supposed to be what this site is all about.

[lugsoul]

How did you get to be such an unadulterated LIAR?

Here's a gauntlet, if that is the only issue you are interested in - find me a single statement from any post that supports your lying allegation that I contend drug legalization will alleviate problems caused by alcohol. Find one. Even one you can stretch. You can't do it, you lying sos.

You stated your reason for continuing the WoD, and in #631 I asked you to elaborate on your reasoning. And you run away like a scared little girl.