[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

How do you tell if you're breaking a just or an unjust law, anyway?

Because in a free society, people should be allowed to engage in behaviour that does not harm others. Any law prohibiting that is unjust.

[Zipperfish]

JJ wrote:

My problem, sir, is that Mr. Emery and his backers seem to think that he has a right to have the full force of the Canadian state rush to his defense simply because he’s a big important crusader-hero whatever. The law may be an ass, but it’s still the law, and Emery should face the consequences of breaking the law, and become a martyr for his cause, rather than pretend that laws he doesn’t particularly care for are ipso facto illegitimate and should not be enforced.

As mentioned, I particularly dislike the crude, opportunistic appeals to petty Canadian nationalism his side is presently peddling, where honoring a run-of-the-mill extradition treaty with the United States suddenly amount to this huge “violation of Canadian sovereignty” simply because Mr. Emery would rather not go to prison.

I think he’s a vile, slimy, stupid sleazebag who deserves to spend some time in prison if for no other reason than it will hopefully help bring his gigantic ego down a peg.

Sounds like you could use a hoot or two yourself. You may also want to consider taking the pole out of your ass.

[Psudo]

Liam: What use is an unenforced or rarely enforced law? The only use is to bring it out of retirement to persecute your enemies. Their only use is corruption. If we're not going to enforce the laws consistently, they're not worth having on the books anyway. Granted, every jurisdiction has some silly, forgotten laws, but that's not a virtue to be embraced for it's support of just law. Fix the law, sure, but don't ignore it and call that justice.

Zipperfish wrote:

Because in a free society, people should be allowed to engage in behaviour that does not harm others. Any law prohibiting that is unjust.

This kind of thing seems to be following me lately.

What you are stating here is an ideology, a point of view. A competing point of view says "... people should be allowed to engage in any behavior that does no harm." The difference being that self-harm is still wrong. There are other factional beliefs on the issue as well; some deem that which does not help as harmful, others believing "the cause" is more important than individual harm, etc, etc. Why should everyone else's philosophies be ignored when judging that law just and yours held as the absolute standard? The law applies just as much to those who disagree with you; why should their views be dismissed out of hand?

If your answer is "Because they're wrong", I implore you to prove it.

And on a similar note, your response to JJ doesn't actually respond to JJ's argument, instead dismissing his position as irrelevant. Is it? It seems a reasonable argument to me.

In essence, you're taking the central tenant of libertarianism and pressing it on others by pure authoritarian force. Don't you see that?

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

What you are stating here is an ideology, a point of view.

It certainly is.

Quote:

A competing point of view says "... people should be allowed to engage in any behavior that does no harm." The difference being that self-harm is still wrong. There are other factional beliefs on the issue as well; some deem that which does not help as harmful, others believing "the cause" is more important than individual harm, etc, etc. Why should everyone else's philosophies be ignored when judging that law just and yours held as the absolute standard? The law applies just as much to those who disagree with you; why should their views be dismissed out of hand?

My point of view would be legislating against "self-harm" is tyranny. "We need to lock masturbators up for their own good, to protect them from the spirtual harm they are doing to themselves." Or "maybe its best if you let us know where your going and when, in order that we can better protect you from harm." The greatest tyranny is imposed by those who seek to protect us from ourselves.

So your definition is easily twisted into tyranny. My definition can't be. Freedom means being able to make decisions for yourself. Freedom is, by nature, an indiviudal, not a collectivist, trait.

Obviously, in a majority, the majority rules, but that does not mean that they are right, as far as freedom goes. The United States--a bastion of freedom--has had its share of repressive laws, such as slavery. Was trying to abolish slavery anti-freedom because abolitionists were going against the freely expressed will of the people?

Pot doesn't kill those that use it, those that use it don't kill to get it, it's not addicitive, it is abused by a relatively small percentage of the popualtion and those that do abuse it harm themselves (but not much), not others. It's illegal because of a puritan mindset that seeks to impose itself on others--the same folks that legislate, for example, that it is obscene for a woman to be seen topless in public.

Quote:

In essence, you're taking the central tenant of libertarianism and pressing it on others by pure authoritarian force.

Completely wrong. How does removing a law count as pure authoritarian force. The law is authoritarian force by definition.

I should add, I don't smoke the stuff myself. I outgrew it like 90% of my friends. But I know, first-hand its effects, and they are innocuous. So I don't see the point of passing a lw against it. Another reason that convinces me that this law is wrong is the extent to which pot prohbitionists distort the truth in order to get their message across. The cop that came to my school said that if you smoke pot, youll grow tits (just the boys mind yo; otherwise you would have had ALL the girls lighting up). You still see a lot of inveiglement, obfuscation and deceit by prohibitionists. The fact that they have to resort to this also convinces me that I am right. not that I ever need much convincing that I'm right.

[DrHobo]

Great thread so far, guys. The blatant name-calling (you're not very bright), trolling (when you said you were conservative, we kinda figured that one out) and buzz-word use (authoritarian and tyranny) have really helped people get to the truth of the matter.

I feel that neither topic has become any clearer, namely:

A) Whether Marc Emery is an activist or a toolbag, the original topic.

B) Whether pot should be legalized. While not the original topic, and very distracting from anything intellectual regarding the OT, it was inevitable that this would come up.

It seems that everyone in here already knows the answer to both of these questions, and are dumbfounded that anyone could think differently. Until this mindset is lifted and at least one person on each side admits the possibility that they could be wrong, nothing positive will come from here.

Remember: there are a lot of people who come here from JJ's site and don't post. When you post something that makes you look like a close-minded idiot, you look like a close minded idiot to a lot more people than just those you're arguing against.

[Zipperfish]

DrHobo wrote:

Great thread so far, guys. The blatant name-calling (you're not very bright), trolling (when you said you were conservative, we kinda figured that one out) and buzz-word use (authoritarian and tyranny) have really helped people get to the truth of the matter.

I feel that neither topic has become any clearer, namely:

A) Whether Marc Emery is an activist or a toolbag, the original topic.

B) Whether pot should be legalized. While not the original topic, and very distracting from anything intellectual regarding the OT, it was inevitable that this would come up.

It seems that everyone in here already knows the answer to both of these questions, and are dumbfounded that anyone could think differently. Until this mindset is lifted and at least one person on each side admits the possibility that they could be wrong, nothing positive will come from here.

Remember: there are a lot of people who come here from JJ's site and don't post. When you post something that makes you look like a close-minded idiot, you look like a close minded idiot to a lot more people than just those you're arguing against.

You're not very bright.

[CanadianJeff]

Murray_Smith wrote:

As someone who could be classified as a "stoner," I must dispense my opinions.

CanadianJeff wrote:

However under no circumstance will I ever support the legalization of the drug becuase I understand from personal experience just how much it can slow down and screw up a persons thinking.

That's a double standard. Alcohol messes with your head just as much as, if not more than, pot.

Quote:

Paranoia and reaction time are the two biggest deals. People on pot should not be allowed ... be in public at all. If it's illegal to be drunk in public it should be illegal to be high in pulbic.

Being high is different from being drunk. I don't think I've ever heard of a belligerent stoner.

Quote:

So why even have that issue when it's so conviently already kept off the streets a fair deal by being illegal.

Frankly if we legalize it we are either going to have to induce a ton of rules to ensure safe driving and healthy lungs for all or we can just not go there and keep the same apparent "Problems" we have now with the subject.

That's an idiotic argument. By your logic, we should ban cars and guns, since regulating them is so much damn trouble. I say put your tax dollars to work. It really won't be that hard to pass regulatory laws, especially if a little common sense is applied.

Quote:

edit: I would like to note I've been off the stuff for a year and a half now and in that time I've started univeristy and generally improved my life. So spare me the speal please. At this point I could give a better one then I've ever heard.

I've been smoking on and off for over a year, and I've gotten straight A's in all my classes except for a B+ in English. I've been majoring in Mathematics since October of last year, and have aced three math (1 trig, 2 calculus) classes in that time. I'm currently doing well in my third calculus class. I've also been working part-time for over a year and a half. I'd say I'm doing okay.

Edit: Also, if I get caught, I get caught. I'm not going to pretend to be a martyr.

Well you know it's nice that you feel so fine and dandy on the stuff but frankly I myself as well as various friends and sadly family of mine have been far far better off it. Your damn right booze is far worse then weed. I think having booze around is honestly not the smartest thing we have ever done as a society but now it's next to impossible to remove. Much like smoking or chewing tabbaco. It's just not a healthy idea in the getgo but now that we have governments making money off the stuff it's next to impossible to get rid of it. Though thankfully tabbaco smoking is starting to vanish at least here in Canada.

Yes your right being high is diffrent from being drunk. High people are the least likely to pound on your door and the most likely to order pizza. But that's not to say it can't or won't affect others in the community. My Brother just got the boot out of his apartment for stinking up his suite by smoking pot. Often those dealing pot end up dealing other harder drugs later on. That's been proven a few times by scientific research. Most drug dealers start small and go big later on. Pot affects the community all be it in a diffrent manner. That's my point.

No by my logic keeping things like booze and Tabbaco from being legal in the first place prevents them from becoming a dependant with negitives. I posted that one badly and I appologize I am mostly just against it ever becoming legal for fear of the government regulation making money off the sale of it. At which point it's going to be hard as hell to get rid of later once we possibly find medical problems with peoples lungs or other organs due to the THC. Frankly if your going to legalize it you have to have some pretty good scientific evidence that there arn't negitive health effects from mass consumption becuase there would be some I'm sure who would consume cheap pot in large amounts if it was grown nice and clean by the government.

Heck BC bud here in Canada is sought after highly becuase of it's clean nature. I know personally speaking that I'd rather have BC bud then anything grown in Saskatchewan. Sticky is good.

You know what? I'll admit I may be wrong. But until you can prove to me that smoking that stuff won't cause any further social problems then the ones we already have with the substance and won't cause anything like an increased risk of cancer or increased chance of something like alzheimer's or otherwise I am afraid I can't endorse it.

Bottom line is that I am really and honesty worried that this stuff will end up being the tabbaco of the future. When cigerates were introduced we didn't fully understand the health flaws involved with smoking. About 10 years down the line we hit a big bump and went "oops" and by that time it was a much much harsher fight to get people off of smoking. What happens if 10 years from now after we legalize it we realize that regualr THC exposure to the brain causes alzheimer's or that the increased drowsiness and relaxation have some adverse affect on mussle development in children who are exposed to the second hand smoke?

It's not that I"m unwilling and unable to budge on this it's just I would really like to see a very strong scientific approach to health effects of long term moderate or heavy use of the substance before legalising it.

Does that help clear things up?

edit: Sorry read this after posting.

Zipperfish wrote:
Because in a free society, people should be allowed to engage in behaviour that does not harm others. Any law prohibiting that is unjust.
This kind of thing seems to be following me lately.

What you are stating here is an ideology, a point of view. A competing point of view says "... people should be allowed to engage in any behavior that does no harm." The difference being that self-harm is still wrong.

That's just it. Can we prove or disprove that pot does harm to an individual either psychlogically or health wise? That sums up my stance in a sentence.

Side note I just had an odd thought. What if one were to ask the question of "Does an individual doing hard to themselves concur further harm on the community around them?". In the end I came up with two lines of thought on this issue.

One was that this is true. Obviously if an individual is harming themselves they will be unable to contribute to their community in a group setting as effective as before. At which point the whole group suffers. For example if I were to go out and get hammered this weekend rather then work on the large pile of reading I should really get to reading after I finish typing this then my performance at school will suffer and my karate class will suffer becuaese I won't be as effective a learning partner for the class. By letting my schoolwork suffer everytime I am forced to do a group project with other students my lack of having more knowledge and my lack of application of that knowledge will harm the group rathrer then allow me to help it as if I had done all my schoolwork to the best I could. The second implication would be of course that by not being the best parter I could my class will not necessarily learn the technique better or more effectivly then if I had been focusing and trying my best to contribute to both the lesson and my own growth. Basically put by going out and drinking a large amount I would have a much larger chance of being less helpfull in future community projects or lessons. Personally speaking I like this line of thought a lot more then the second I had.

The other line of thought I had was that if that first line of thought is true then maybe we should allow it to remain true becuase those of us who cause self harm have nothing to lose but themselves in terms of their own self growth. If these people do not grow as much or as quickly as the rest of us they are less likely to be selected for reproduction and the next generation will be that much stronger without them. Harsh and very Darwin like logic but it is likely. Problem of course being that if the people in the first line of thought grow stronger from that same individual helping everyone to grow then the next generation will also get stronger.

So I suppose that the belief of "in a free society, people should be allowed to engage in behaviour that does not harm others" could simply be a way of evolution rather then trying to force improvment by punishing those who do self harm.

Meanwhile the belief "People should be allowed to engage in behaviour that does not cause harm" falls into the idea of punishing those who do not conform or help others in an attempt to improve everyone.

Just some thoughts. Anyway to that pile of reading I mentioned earlier.

For the record I dislike Jane Austin's novels and heavily wish I did not have to engage in them. Books where characters do nothing but talk are just not my thing.

[Zipperfish]

CanadianJeff wrote:

You know what? I'll admit I may be wrong. But until you can prove to me that smoking that stuff won't cause any further social problems then the ones we already have with the substance and won't cause anything like an increased risk of cancer or increased chance of something like alzheimer's or otherwise I am afraid I can't endorse it.

You want to ban everything that increases the risk of caner. Won't that be a fun country. Celery for breakfast, lunch and dinner!

[quote=CanJeff"]

Obviously if an individual is harming themselves they will be unable to contribute to their community in a group setting as effective as before. At which point the whole group suffers. [/quote]

Yes, that point of view is called socialism--the wants of the individual are suvbservient to the greater good of teh state. It's not an ideology I particuarly espouse. I like individual freedom better, where people are deemed responsible enough to make their own decision, and government powers are limited.

[Blue_Nose]

Yikes.

CanadianJeff wrote:

Well you know it's nice that you feel so fine and dandy on the stuff but frankly I myself as well as various friends and sadly family of mine have been far far better off it.

Guess what that means? Murray_Smith has no problems and doesn't need to be held responsible for the issues you and your "Various friends" have.

CanadianJeff wrote:

Your damn right booze is far worse then weed. I think having booze around is honestly not the smartest thing we have ever done as a society but now it's next to impossible to remove. Much like smoking or chewing tabbaco. It's just not a healthy idea in the getgo but now that we have governments making money off the stuff it's next to impossible to get rid of it. Though thankfully tabbaco smoking is starting to vanish at least here in Canada.

Again, you're projecting your personal problems on others - I have no problem with alcohol, nor do the people around me, and nor do plenty of people who can handle the responsibility of making their own personal decisions. We're not going to "get rid of it" because it's not inherently harmful.

CanadianJeff wrote:

No by my logic keeping things like booze and Tabbaco from being legal in the first place prevents them from becoming a dependant with negitives.

Yeah, and we all know how well prohibition works. I can see a lot more "negitives" in driving production underground and having people go blind drinking bad moonshine instead of rum from a government-regulated liquor store.

CanadianJeff wrote:

You know what? I'll admit I may be wrong. But until you can prove to me that smoking that stuff won't cause any further social problems then the ones we already have with the substance and won't cause anything like an increased risk of cancer or increased chance of something like alzheimer's or otherwise I am afraid I can't endorse it.

Guess what? Your personal "endorsement" doesn't mean squat when it comes to anyone but yourself. Try to give others enough respect to make their own decisions and decide what health risks are significant to them.

[Streaker]

Zipperfish wrote:

DrHobo wrote:

Great thread so far, guys. The blatant name-calling (you're not very bright), trolling (when you said you were conservative, we kinda figured that one out) and buzz-word use (authoritarian and tyranny) have really helped people get to the truth of the matter.

I feel that neither topic has become any clearer, namely:

A) Whether Marc Emery is an activist or a toolbag, the original topic.

B) Whether pot should be legalized. While not the original topic, and very distracting from anything intellectual regarding the OT, it was inevitable that this would come up.

It seems that everyone in here already knows the answer to both of these questions, and are dumbfounded that anyone could think differently. Until this mindset is lifted and at least one person on each side admits the possibility that they could be wrong, nothing positive will come from here.

Remember: there are a lot of people who come here from JJ's site and don't post. When you post something that makes you look like a close-minded idiot, you look like a close minded idiot to a lot more people than just those you're arguing against.

You're not very bright.

He must be conservative.

[CanadianJeff]

Zipperfish wrote:

You want to ban everything that increases the risk of caner. Won't that be a fun country. Celery for breakfast, lunch and dinner!

I didn't say ban everything with a risk of cancer. I meant ban new products from entering the market that carry a higher risk such as cigerates. Eat what you want frankly that's no concern of anyone's unless you get diabetes or get really really fat and even then that's your choice. But cigartes and products like them that do nothing but lower the health of all of us by means of second hand smoke...and well to be honest I can't say I'm fond of the smell when a really heavy smoker enters the room. Then we should likely just not introduce it in the first place.

Zipperfish wrote:

Yes, that point of view is called socialism--the wants of the individual are suvbservient to the greater good of teh state. It's not an ideology I particuarly espouse. I like individual freedom better, where people are deemed responsible enough to make their own decision, and government powers are limited.

I was just putting out thoughts I had out there it doesn't mean I agree with them totally either. It's just the line of thought I had from the entire harm discussion. Take it for what you will. Just throwing it out there.

Now then Blue nose you seem to think that I've got my head in my own bubble or something. I was simply listing my own experiences as a point of refrence. I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone I was simply pointing out that there are people who have problems that the core root is the pot. It's not like the substance is without it's ups or downs like anything else.

As well it's not like Prohabition is the only way to deal with the problem. Take Liverpool in england for example. They had huge drug problems there with a ton of people ending up in hospitals and catching aids and other things from using needles. The addiction rate was a lot higher then most of the country. They tried the whole war on drugs that the US is doing right now and it only drove rates higher for them. So instead of combat it by simply banning it they took a more proactive approach.

They opened various clinics in diffrent cities for drug addicts. Bascially put the government became a drug dealer for people who suffered from drug addiction. If you had an addiction you could come in and a doctor would test you for various things and then give you a presciption for crack or lsd or whatever your fix was. He would show you how to properly use a needle to give yourself the drug and then give you enough clean needles as you needed. However in order to keep qualifying for government aid with your problem you had to hold down a steady job and come to various meetings and activites designed to help you live your life with a drug addiction.

The end result was a lot less people getting sick from bad needles and next to no prostitution or street dealing was found in neighbourhoods with these clinics. It didn't get rid of the problem but it did reduce it and got people stuck on the street working and managing things easier.

It could be done with alchohol if you think about it. Even alongside having it legalized.

And I don't think that my opinon is going to override anything but my own opinon. I was just making a statment about how I personally feel about it. Obviously you can see I'm a little biast. so you know to take it with a grain of salt. That's why it's there so you know to take it with a grain of salt. Although I suppose this is the internet after all. I hate typing sometimes. It's better when people can cut in.

[EmperorLiam]

Psudo: "If we're not going to enforce the laws consistently, they're not worth having on the books anyway." "Fix the law, sure, but don't ignore it and call that justice."

Personally, I grew weed for the money, but whether I liked it or not, I was a part of the effort to "overgrow the government." What growers are participating in, is a massive civil disobedient act, that with time gets more attention and converts and $$$$. From a utilitarian aspect, your method of achieving justice, is too slow.

There is no absolute ethical law, nor do we know what evolution prefers (we know a little, long ways to go), so really, this is all just a figment of our imagination. I may be cliche to say this, but, "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one." If a law ignores human nature, then it is not just some might say. Others would argue what they think "normal" is, etc. Most people tend to beleve their parents,, then government, brain washing is a part of evolution, other species do it too.

We are biomechanical machines that pretend to have free will and go to heaven if were good or hell if were bad. Even the so called 'atheist' aka communist countries still mostly full of religious people. Some would argue against that, quarks are random, maybe thats free will? But it might not be random, nothing else in the universe is random, why would it? Too early to make any conclusions.


"Why should everyone else's philosophies be ignored when judging that law just and yours held as the absolute standard?"

'Unjust' and the word 'fair' are interchangeable, when has fairness not been just opinion? As a pseudo-democracy we decide what is 'fair' via majority vote. I can't think of a more 'fair' system of government than democracy. Normally, I don't answer stupid questions. =P



DrHobo: "The blatant name-calling (you're not very bright), trolling (when you said you were conservative, we kinda figured that one out)"

The funny thing is, your avatar comes from a comic that talks tough and immature as web-comics get (besides the fart jokes in pvp). JJ is a young guy still, not a crusty old boot. He also can handle name calling just fine, especially tongue in cheek comments like mine.

"A) Whether Marc Emery is an activist or a toolbag, the original topic."

I kinda thought I made it clear that Marc Emery is both a 'toolbag' and an activist. JJ himself is a part of his activism, by making a (very well drawn) cartoon on the topic. Whether JJ likes it or not, Emery, whom me and JJ agree on is a douche, is enormously connected to the anti-prohibition and libertarian movement in Canada, and I'd say hes made a lot of friends and enemies, so no one is surprised, and no one is more prepared than Marc Emery.



Canadianjeff: "Frankly if your going to legalize it you have to have some pretty good scientific evidence that there arn't negitive health effects"

Why? What science is there that the majority is better off if they can't harm/kill themselves? Maybe the benefits outweighs the negatives? Wouldn't it be easier and better to just let people decide on there own, make it so you don't have to go to a shady drug addicted dealer peddling weed just to pressure them into trying narcotics (weed isn't a narcotic btw). The only arguments that you can make in favour of prohibition, is that it is unfair/harmful for the others paying into a socialized health care system. But what of those that are also against socialized health care? This topic splits the libertarians from the commies in the anti-prohibition movement, libertarians mostly are for private health care... might just be because most libertarians are Americans.

But what about the justice system and crime levels? Now your solution, means laws banning shit, that then creates a profitable black market, causing more crime and organized crime syndicates. The fact that a cop could plant something on you and put you away, has caused thousands of innocent people to suffer at the hands of immoral police officers, power corrupts! Plus, we have seen the laws created to fight the war on drugs, that infringe civil liberties. So your solution, to be precise, stinks worse than a bucket full of aborted baby jesus'es... or would that be jesi?

"I'll admit I may be wrong. But until you can prove to me that smoking that stuff won't cause any further social problems then the ones we already have with the substance and"

Not trying to convince you, your problem, not mine, I'm just "chipping in" a few little facts, theres a lot of knowledge out there, you really should research for yourself, a good 5-10 days, talk to a few lawyers, activists etc. Surf the net. Anytime you put something in your body you should research it, it is a luxury of the 21st century, take advantage of it.

Its a mix, some good, some bad, some neutral.

Anytime you burn something you get carbon monoxide, weed is no exception.

Now one thing that is GOOD, that people try to claim is bad, is that marijuana has at least 5 times as much tar. What people don't seem to know, is that less tar means smaller particles, the small tar particles penetrates deeper into the lungs. Because the particles are smaller they don't lose as much heat in air, and thus burn the lungs. The deeper the smoke penetrates, the harder it is for your lungs to clean it out, flem comes up for many smokers, that they usually swallow, it is harmless to the digestive system. Bongs, brownies, there are healthier alternatives. So far no proof marijuana causes cancer, oddly enough THC concentrate is being aplied to cancers, they found it differentiated between healthy and cancerous cells, kill the cancerous ones. Some forms of THC are naturally in the human brain already, most narcotics work on increasing dopamine in your brain, THC's roll isn't yet fully understood to make any conclusion.


"and won't cause anything like an increased risk of cancer or increased chance of something like alzheimer's or otherwise I am afraid I can't endorse it."

<Don't take me too seriously from here on out Canadianjeff, just tossing some ideas out there like you were yourself, people that get angry online are a little silly>

Don't go outside, UV causes cancer, don't stand near fluorescent bulbs, they emit UV, don't breath oxygen-it causes cancer (its an oxidant), don't let children live in a city-cars pollute the air causing asthma in children, blah blah blah. Isn't it already well known marijuana has medicinal properties? There haven't been any flipper babies, no one in the history of mankind has died from marijuana, and the US already sells it in pill form as Marinol: http://www.marinol.com/


If we make contact with alien races, are we gonna tell them how to live too? It would make a good movie I think!

I'd like to know why you think this way, I personally can't stand others telling me what to do, why are you so eager for a society that forces you to behave in the manner of their choosing? Are you all about the Tau? Gonna start going on about "the greater good" ? =P

Overall CanadianJeff, you sound like a... hrm, you know that word that starts with a 'C'... hmm, Curbism? No... Caulkism?... like the word 'community', but not. You know, that guy with the stache that massacred millions of his own people, and that short bald asian dude that caused millions to starve by accident... you know that system of government where the government passes laws controlling the individual for the good of the community. Just can't think of the word, you don't hear it too often though, its not like its a political system that has been proven to be the most authoritarian and evil form of government in the history of mankind or anything like brutally working political activists, their families, and children to death in the middle of a freezing cold desert with no proper winter clothing on a diet of rotten food, being raped at the whim of guards etc etc.... no policies like mandating what crops to plant that simply couldn't survive causing mass starvation and death on the scale of millions, and its not like to this day they still worship him like some sort of supreme leader. Your way of living sounds splendid, sign me up! Where do they put the barcode tattoo? And how often will I have to be anally raped so that the government is happy? Congrats on bothering to read this far, we have too much free time! And no I don't think you're a commie. =P

[Zipperfish]

CanadianJeff wrote:

Well you know it's nice that you feel so fine and dandy on the stuff but frankly I myself as well as various friends and sadly family of mine have been far far better off it. Your damn right booze is far worse then weed. I think having booze around is honestly not the smartest thing we have ever done as a society but now it's next to impossible to remove. Much like smoking or chewing tabbaco. It's just not a healthy idea in the getgo but now that we have governments making money off the stuff it's next to impossible to get rid of it. Though thankfully tabbaco smoking is starting to vanish at least here in Canada.

yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah yackity freakin' schmackity

Just some thoughts. Anyway to that pile of reading I mentioned earlier.

For the record I dislike Jane Austin's novels and heavily wish I did not have to engage in them. Books where characters do nothing but talk are just not my thing.

Well, to me you sound like a proponent of the Nanny State. That would be hell on earth for me. But, as you state, it's just your opinion, and my views are just my opinion, and although we disagree, I apprecaite that you put together your arguments in such a respectful way. Cheers.

[Kjorteo]

To the people who keep claiming to grow as an act of civil disobedience: Don't forget that in a trial by jury, the juries can vote to acquit the defendant on the grounds that the law is unjust or unconstitutional. This is known as jury nullification and is, I imagine, a very important part of the process of overturning a law through civil disobedience and trials.

[Zipperfish]

Streaker wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

DrHobo wrote:

Great thread so far, guys. The blatant name-calling (you're not very bright), trolling (when you said you were conservative, we kinda figured that one out) and buzz-word use (authoritarian and tyranny) have really helped people get to the truth of the matter.

I feel that neither topic has become any clearer, namely:

A) Whether Marc Emery is an activist or a toolbag, the original topic.

B) Whether pot should be legalized. While not the original topic, and very distracting from anything intellectual regarding the OT, it was inevitable that this would come up.

It seems that everyone in here already knows the answer to both of these questions, and are dumbfounded that anyone could think differently. Until this mindset is lifted and at least one person on each side admits the possibility that they could be wrong, nothing positive will come from here.

Remember: there are a lot of people who come here from JJ's site and don't post. When you post something that makes you look like a close-minded idiot, you look like a close minded idiot to a lot more people than just those you're arguing against.

You're not very bright.

He must be conservative.

Actual I've met some pretty bright conservatives in my day. I've even had my ass handed to me a couple of times (by Bart here and by Thanos under a previous nick) by being arrogant enough to assume that since I was a liberal, I considered the issue we were discussing more thoroughly than some right-wing reactionary had.

However, conservatives do have small penises. Even the women.