Weed is the least damaging, and has medicinal benefits.
Fuck the government.
SSS
July 30, 2015 8:47 pm
“Weed is the least damaging ….. ”
—-taxSlave
Well, isn’t that special?
Least damaging? What a wonderful statement to support legal pot. Sort of like saying that a 500 lb bomb is the least damaging among a 1,000 or 2,000 lb bomb. Duh.
taxSlave
July 30, 2015 8:48 pm
SSS – blow me.
You don’t want to smoke it, fine.
Mind your own business ass.
Stucky
July 30, 2015 8:50 pm
Wish we could see a before-and-after of SSS when he sees this.
SSS
July 30, 2015 8:57 pm
taxSlave
Decriminalize personal use of pot Not legalize.
Do some fucking homework and get back to me. Tell me where I’m wrong.
taxSlave
July 30, 2015 8:58 pm
Really, wtf – SSS is a nanny state cheerleader.
You can’t even run you own life, I ‘ll be damned if you’ll run mine.
bb
July 30, 2015 9:13 pm
I’m an expert on this topic. I watch the ..see cops get criminal shows.. I can tell you alcohol is by far the most dangerous to society. Meth and heroin are bad but alcohol abuse is a reason for so much of the stupid shit people do and it’s legal.
Tim
July 30, 2015 9:15 pm
@SSS –
OK, I admit to being the dumbest guy on this site. ……….?????…….
Nah, that honor fully belongs to others for all time.
But, can you please explain to me the difference between decriminalization & legalization?
I don’t know the difference.
kokoda
July 30, 2015 9:18 pm
Weed is Sooooooooooo BAAD
Get high – laugh at anything – get the munchies – more laughing – get tired – go to sleep
Weed is Soooooooooooo dangerous
Zarathustra
July 30, 2015 9:27 pm
kokoda, Weed would also improve SSS’s golf game, if not in score then in enjoyment.
robert h siddell jr
July 30, 2015 9:36 pm
BS, they don’t call it dope for nothing: go on, make yourself progressively more stupid.
kokoda
July 30, 2015 9:50 pm
BEA LEVER
July 30, 2015 10:14 pm
I think Oreo has been smoking something pretty bad, last time I saw him he looked like death warmed over. Would be interesting to see a picture of him seven years ago and one of him today side by side.
Capn Mike
July 30, 2015 10:46 pm
@taxSlave
Ol’ Jonathan Edwards was a neighbor of mine. Good Guy. Had an amazing ol’ lady!!
Brian
July 31, 2015 1:29 am
Bea, search it up:
SSS
July 31, 2015 2:03 am
“SSS – blow me. ……. Mind your own business ass.”
—-taxSlave
Last week it was ottomatik, this week taxSlave. I really need to think about starting a fan club.
IndenturedServant
July 31, 2015 4:23 am
Drugs are bad. Mmmkay!
Anonymous
July 31, 2015 7:55 am
What someone keeps to themselves is their business and I have no right to intrude on it.
What someone pushes off on me is my business and I have every right to intrude on it.
If druggies want to damage or destroy their lives and stay out of public, that’s fine with me as long as I’m not going to be expected to pay their medical and upkeep costs.
But we all know that the public trough is filled with druggies and alcoholics, and that they devastate people on our highways and cause violent problems in public places on a very regular basis.
So take notice druggies and alcoholics, your habit is intruding on me and that makes it my business. That’s the only reason I support laws against these evil substances.
Lysander
July 31, 2015 9:32 am
[img]/home/jeff/Desktop/images.jpeg[/img]
Lysander
July 31, 2015 9:32 am
Well, that didn’t work.
Rise Up
July 31, 2015 9:45 am
Tim says: “But, can you please explain to me the difference between decriminalization & legalization?”
———————
decriminalization = civil fine, not criminal fine/punishment
it can still be illegal but not criminal.
Montefrío
July 31, 2015 9:59 am
It’s not so much the substance that causes problems as the nature of the user (guns, anyone?). There are people who simply can’t control themselves, people who are without the brain power to manage substance use or nearly anything about their own lives but believe their dim bulb brains qualify them as the peers of even the most intelligent (equality!), These are the dopes that get doped up by food, entertainment, violence, substance abuse or just about anything else you can think of. I used to have sympathy for the stupid, but that was because I had little contact with them; as circumstances have forced me to have more, I’ve lost all my sympathy for them and just want to keep them away from me and mine. Marijuana use by these gloms is among the least of my worries.
ottomatik
July 31, 2015 11:33 am
Decriminalization enshrines the States role in micromanagement of individual decisions. Essentially hooking the taxpayer for the bureaucratic cost of implementation, while eliminating commercial opportunity and potential tax benefits offsetting these costs.
SSS- Under decriminalization would hippy Joe be legally entitled to grow a marijuana bush on his Property to smoke for himself, like tomatoes?
Aside from commerce or distribution it’s a stretch to envision any role the State(any level) has in the above scenario, Constitutionally speaking. Unless of course your a Statist possessing a deep appreciation for the “Death by a Thousand Cuts” our Constitution has suffered.
SSS
July 31, 2015 1:20 pm
“SSS- Under decriminalization would hippy Joe be legally entitled to grow a marijuana bush on his Property to smoke for himself, like tomatoes?
Aside from commerce or distribution it’s a stretch to envision any role the State(any level) has in the above scenario, Constitutionally speaking.”
—-ottomatik
The answer to your question is no.
Constitutionally speaking, that document bans the federal, and perforce any lesser, government from undertaking certain activities, such as impeding freedom of speech or conducting illegal searches. It does NOT address, nor prohibit, the federal government from banning certain activities, such as bank robbery or the manufacture, transport, sale, and possession of substances that are deemed harmful to the general public.
You may not like it, but banning marijuana is perfectly legal under the Constitution. Otherwise, there would have been, by now, a case presented to the Supreme Court for adjudication. I know of no such case for the simple reason that it would never be heard by a federal court, much less wind its way to the Supreme Court.
Starting with the gross abuse of the interstate commerce clause and 10th Amendment, the Constitution has indeed suffered a “Death by a Thousand Cuts,” but banning certain substances ain’t one of them. Live with it.
EL Coyote
July 31, 2015 1:25 pm
SSS, you’ve got to manage these things. Me and bb have got I-S running our fan club.
KaD
July 31, 2015 1:42 pm
The weed picture isn’t quite accurate. Having know some regular smokers their eyelids are usually half open/half closed in that typical stoner look.
Stucky
July 31, 2015 2:00 pm
“You may not like it, but banning marijuana is perfectly legal under the Constitution” —— SSS
Idiot.
Westcoaster
July 31, 2015 3:30 pm
So long as tobacco is legal, for sale practically everywhere, and cannabis is not…then I say we have our priorities backwards, and a hypocrite government. No way should Cannabis have EVER been branded as a “Schedule 1” drug.
ottomatik
July 31, 2015 4:58 pm
Westcoaster touches the “Death by a Thousand Cuts” I was referring to. The fact the Executive has constructed a host of Bureaucratic Regulatory bodies, including the FDA, was perhaps foreseen by the founders, but unintended in its current state.
In my example, I believe one would be hard pressed to find a signer that would approve of “hippy Joe” NOT being able to grow a pot plant on his property to consume himself.
Unfortunately after millenia-o-thousand-cuts, we find ourselves here, with the complete inversion of the Constitution, the rights relegated to the States and Individuals have been slowly and inexorably consumed by the Federal Government.
I don’t like it, concentrated power is generally undesirable, I would prefer a reversion to the mean, with States empowered to regulate ‘minor’ issues such as this and others.
SSS
July 31, 2015 7:10 pm
“I don’t like it, concentrated power is generally undesirable, I would prefer a reversion to the mean, with States empowered to regulate ‘minor’ issues such as this and others.”
—-ottomatik
I agree, for heaven’s sake. I am offering a LEGAL ALTERNATIVE to punitive laws on marijuana possession while still supportive of keeping the substance illegal.
You are among the 100% crowd who say “Legalize it.” All or nothing. And you will not budge. Fine, but it won’t happen in your lifetime, and I’ve explained in detail why.
My route of decriminalization stops the madness of blotting the record of pot-smoking or pot-possessing youngsters, all of them, with a fucking felony. That’s insane. Kids, and many adults, do stupid shit all the time. I’m trying to protect them from a lifetime of heartache AND make them pay for their mistake. It’s called realism.
Zarathustra
July 31, 2015 7:30 pm
SSS writes:
“You may not like it, but banning marijuana is perfectly legal under the Constitution. Otherwise, there would have been, by now, a case presented to the Supreme Court for adjudication. I know of no such case for the simple reason that it would never be heard by a federal court, much less wind its way to the Supreme Court.
Starting with the gross abuse of the interstate commerce clause and 10th Amendment, the Constitution has indeed suffered a “Death by a Thousand Cuts,” but banning certain substances ain’t one of them. Live with it.”
_______________________________________
This makes no sense. The only means to ban marijuana at the federal level is through the (abuse of) commerce clause. The states can do as they please.
SSS
July 31, 2015 8:32 pm
“This makes no sense.”
—-Zara@SSS
Don’t care if my reasoning makes no sense to you, ottomatik, Stucky, Westcoaster, and a whole host of visitors to TBP. I’m proposing a DOABLE alternative, as I have been for years, to deal with violators of the federal government’s laws on marijuana. It’s not only doable, it’s been done in several states. Legally. So I’m not making up shit here, my views are FACT. And they work.
My stance limits the damage to the pot user. Your stance, assuming you favor legalization, is a fucking pipe dream. Join me in the march on sanity to pot laws.
Zarathustra
July 31, 2015 8:41 pm
I favor following the fucking Constitution. It should be left to the states.
ottomatik
August 1, 2015 11:58 am
SSS- “You are among the 100% crowd who say “Legalize it. Fine, but it won’t happen in your lifetime,…”
Fine, but it is happening, and I am still alive. Further, why should we start with a compromise? That is poor negotiation and weak tactics. Should we not demand legalization, spread the concept, build coalitions, and if necessary, dial back in negotiations? Liberty demands it.
This issue is obviously much bigger than Marijuana, Marijuana is but a vehicle used to highlight issues of Sovereignty; Sovereignty of the Individual, Sovereignty of the States, and paradoxically Sovereignty of the United States of America. The timing is crucial, especially as we witness the next pyramidic level formulating above our Federal Government, the Global level.
Many visitors and commenters get hung up on ‘Pot’ and denigrate stoners, failing to grasp the significance of the larger issues forced into the open. Which is funny, the clueless, stigmatizing marijuana users, from their perch of ignorance.
Weed is the least damaging, and has medicinal benefits.
Fuck the government.
“Weed is the least damaging ….. ”
—-taxSlave
Well, isn’t that special?
Least damaging? What a wonderful statement to support legal pot. Sort of like saying that a 500 lb bomb is the least damaging among a 1,000 or 2,000 lb bomb. Duh.
SSS – blow me.
You don’t want to smoke it, fine.
Mind your own business ass.
Wish we could see a before-and-after of SSS when he sees this.
taxSlave
Decriminalize personal use of pot Not legalize.
Do some fucking homework and get back to me. Tell me where I’m wrong.
Really, wtf – SSS is a nanny state cheerleader.
You can’t even run you own life, I ‘ll be damned if you’ll run mine.
I’m an expert on this topic. I watch the ..see cops get criminal shows.. I can tell you alcohol is by far the most dangerous to society. Meth and heroin are bad but alcohol abuse is a reason for so much of the stupid shit people do and it’s legal.
@SSS –
OK, I admit to being the dumbest guy on this site. ……….?????…….
Nah, that honor fully belongs to others for all time.
But, can you please explain to me the difference between decriminalization & legalization?
I don’t know the difference.
Weed is Sooooooooooo BAAD
Get high – laugh at anything – get the munchies – more laughing – get tired – go to sleep
Weed is Soooooooooooo dangerous
kokoda, Weed would also improve SSS’s golf game, if not in score then in enjoyment.
BS, they don’t call it dope for nothing: go on, make yourself progressively more stupid.
I think Oreo has been smoking something pretty bad, last time I saw him he looked like death warmed over. Would be interesting to see a picture of him seven years ago and one of him today side by side.
@taxSlave
Ol’ Jonathan Edwards was a neighbor of mine. Good Guy. Had an amazing ol’ lady!!
Bea, search it up:
“SSS – blow me. ……. Mind your own business ass.”
—-taxSlave
Last week it was ottomatik, this week taxSlave. I really need to think about starting a fan club.
Drugs are bad. Mmmkay!
What someone keeps to themselves is their business and I have no right to intrude on it.
What someone pushes off on me is my business and I have every right to intrude on it.
If druggies want to damage or destroy their lives and stay out of public, that’s fine with me as long as I’m not going to be expected to pay their medical and upkeep costs.
But we all know that the public trough is filled with druggies and alcoholics, and that they devastate people on our highways and cause violent problems in public places on a very regular basis.
So take notice druggies and alcoholics, your habit is intruding on me and that makes it my business. That’s the only reason I support laws against these evil substances.
[img]/home/jeff/Desktop/images.jpeg[/img]
Well, that didn’t work.
Tim says: “But, can you please explain to me the difference between decriminalization & legalization?”
———————
decriminalization = civil fine, not criminal fine/punishment
it can still be illegal but not criminal.
It’s not so much the substance that causes problems as the nature of the user (guns, anyone?). There are people who simply can’t control themselves, people who are without the brain power to manage substance use or nearly anything about their own lives but believe their dim bulb brains qualify them as the peers of even the most intelligent (equality!), These are the dopes that get doped up by food, entertainment, violence, substance abuse or just about anything else you can think of. I used to have sympathy for the stupid, but that was because I had little contact with them; as circumstances have forced me to have more, I’ve lost all my sympathy for them and just want to keep them away from me and mine. Marijuana use by these gloms is among the least of my worries.
Decriminalization enshrines the States role in micromanagement of individual decisions. Essentially hooking the taxpayer for the bureaucratic cost of implementation, while eliminating commercial opportunity and potential tax benefits offsetting these costs.
SSS- Under decriminalization would hippy Joe be legally entitled to grow a marijuana bush on his Property to smoke for himself, like tomatoes?
Aside from commerce or distribution it’s a stretch to envision any role the State(any level) has in the above scenario, Constitutionally speaking. Unless of course your a Statist possessing a deep appreciation for the “Death by a Thousand Cuts” our Constitution has suffered.
“SSS- Under decriminalization would hippy Joe be legally entitled to grow a marijuana bush on his Property to smoke for himself, like tomatoes?
Aside from commerce or distribution it’s a stretch to envision any role the State(any level) has in the above scenario, Constitutionally speaking.”
—-ottomatik
The answer to your question is no.
Constitutionally speaking, that document bans the federal, and perforce any lesser, government from undertaking certain activities, such as impeding freedom of speech or conducting illegal searches. It does NOT address, nor prohibit, the federal government from banning certain activities, such as bank robbery or the manufacture, transport, sale, and possession of substances that are deemed harmful to the general public.
You may not like it, but banning marijuana is perfectly legal under the Constitution. Otherwise, there would have been, by now, a case presented to the Supreme Court for adjudication. I know of no such case for the simple reason that it would never be heard by a federal court, much less wind its way to the Supreme Court.
Starting with the gross abuse of the interstate commerce clause and 10th Amendment, the Constitution has indeed suffered a “Death by a Thousand Cuts,” but banning certain substances ain’t one of them. Live with it.
SSS, you’ve got to manage these things. Me and bb have got I-S running our fan club.
The weed picture isn’t quite accurate. Having know some regular smokers their eyelids are usually half open/half closed in that typical stoner look.
“You may not like it, but banning marijuana is perfectly legal under the Constitution” —— SSS
Idiot.
So long as tobacco is legal, for sale practically everywhere, and cannabis is not…then I say we have our priorities backwards, and a hypocrite government. No way should Cannabis have EVER been branded as a “Schedule 1” drug.
Westcoaster touches the “Death by a Thousand Cuts” I was referring to. The fact the Executive has constructed a host of Bureaucratic Regulatory bodies, including the FDA, was perhaps foreseen by the founders, but unintended in its current state.
In my example, I believe one would be hard pressed to find a signer that would approve of “hippy Joe” NOT being able to grow a pot plant on his property to consume himself.
Unfortunately after millenia-o-thousand-cuts, we find ourselves here, with the complete inversion of the Constitution, the rights relegated to the States and Individuals have been slowly and inexorably consumed by the Federal Government.
I don’t like it, concentrated power is generally undesirable, I would prefer a reversion to the mean, with States empowered to regulate ‘minor’ issues such as this and others.
“I don’t like it, concentrated power is generally undesirable, I would prefer a reversion to the mean, with States empowered to regulate ‘minor’ issues such as this and others.”
—-ottomatik
I agree, for heaven’s sake. I am offering a LEGAL ALTERNATIVE to punitive laws on marijuana possession while still supportive of keeping the substance illegal.
You are among the 100% crowd who say “Legalize it.” All or nothing. And you will not budge. Fine, but it won’t happen in your lifetime, and I’ve explained in detail why.
My route of decriminalization stops the madness of blotting the record of pot-smoking or pot-possessing youngsters, all of them, with a fucking felony. That’s insane. Kids, and many adults, do stupid shit all the time. I’m trying to protect them from a lifetime of heartache AND make them pay for their mistake. It’s called realism.
SSS writes:
“You may not like it, but banning marijuana is perfectly legal under the Constitution. Otherwise, there would have been, by now, a case presented to the Supreme Court for adjudication. I know of no such case for the simple reason that it would never be heard by a federal court, much less wind its way to the Supreme Court.
Starting with the gross abuse of the interstate commerce clause and 10th Amendment, the Constitution has indeed suffered a “Death by a Thousand Cuts,” but banning certain substances ain’t one of them. Live with it.”
_______________________________________
This makes no sense. The only means to ban marijuana at the federal level is through the (abuse of) commerce clause. The states can do as they please.
“This makes no sense.”
—-Zara@SSS
Don’t care if my reasoning makes no sense to you, ottomatik, Stucky, Westcoaster, and a whole host of visitors to TBP. I’m proposing a DOABLE alternative, as I have been for years, to deal with violators of the federal government’s laws on marijuana. It’s not only doable, it’s been done in several states. Legally. So I’m not making up shit here, my views are FACT. And they work.
My stance limits the damage to the pot user. Your stance, assuming you favor legalization, is a fucking pipe dream. Join me in the march on sanity to pot laws.
I favor following the fucking Constitution. It should be left to the states.
SSS- “You are among the 100% crowd who say “Legalize it. Fine, but it won’t happen in your lifetime,…”
Fine, but it is happening, and I am still alive. Further, why should we start with a compromise? That is poor negotiation and weak tactics. Should we not demand legalization, spread the concept, build coalitions, and if necessary, dial back in negotiations? Liberty demands it.
This issue is obviously much bigger than Marijuana, Marijuana is but a vehicle used to highlight issues of Sovereignty; Sovereignty of the Individual, Sovereignty of the States, and paradoxically Sovereignty of the United States of America. The timing is crucial, especially as we witness the next pyramidic level formulating above our Federal Government, the Global level.
Many visitors and commenters get hung up on ‘Pot’ and denigrate stoners, failing to grasp the significance of the larger issues forced into the open. Which is funny, the clueless, stigmatizing marijuana users, from their perch of ignorance.