The Cannabis Experiment
- Thread starter Archie Graham
- Start date
I personally hate the stuff and can't stand the smell. That said, it falls on the spectrum of a lot of substances that aren't great for us. Government needs to draw a line somewhere. Personal and social impacts need to be properly measured so decisions aren't arbitrary, which is the situation we have now. Processed sugar, caffeine, tobacco, pot, alcohol, cocaine, etc. all affect us to different degrees.
I don't think it's government's job to protect us from ourselves. But it is government's job to protect us from each other, and others from ourselves. My neighbor has a 4 month old and blazes up in their own home nightly. Does that 4 month old have a right to protection from the government? According to the state of Washington, he doesn't. Should he? Maybe not, tobacco is legal and people have been smoking it around their children for years. Should smoking tobacco be legal?
I'm certain that I'm in an extreme minority, but my opinion that nobody asked for is that smoking of any kind should be illegal. Just because you choose to smoke doesn't mean that I should have to ingest it second-hand. What about my right to clean air? Drink it, chew it, inject it, no problem! As long as it doesn't turn you into a monster, I'm all for it being legal.
I don't think it's government's job to protect us from ourselves. But it is government's job to protect us from each other, and others from ourselves. My neighbor has a 4 month old and blazes up in their own home nightly. Does that 4 month old have a right to protection from the government? According to the state of Washington, he doesn't. Should he? Maybe not, tobacco is legal and people have been smoking it around their children for years. Should smoking tobacco be legal?
I'm certain that I'm in an extreme minority, but my opinion that nobody asked for is that smoking of any kind should be illegal. Just because you choose to smoke doesn't mean that I should have to ingest it second-hand. What about my right to clean air? Drink it, chew it, inject it, no problem! As long as it doesn't turn you into a monster, I'm all for it being legal.
Great post. I don't share your attitude toward second-hand smoke entirely, as I don't think occasional exposure to carcinogens through second-hand smoke warrants an outright ban (e.g., smoking bans on college campuses make little sense to me, especially where I live in Southern California. I believe I inhale more carcinogens during my daily run, inhaling smog and car exhaust, than I do from someone smoking x feet away from on campus). I do share your intuition regarding the parent and the child, however, and would probably share your thoughts regarding smoking indoors.
I agree with everything you said regarding the arbitrariness of current law and also the fact that things like processed foods, sugar, and caffeine should be regulated if the gov't is to remain consistent in its rationale. But here I also agree with you: it's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. So I hope we see a decrease in regulation and an increase in transparency. That should be the primary thing government regulates and enforces: accurate and reliable information regarding the substances and products we consume.
I agree with your assertion about carcinogen concentration regarding outdoor second-hand smoke. My opinion may be unduly influenced by my dislike of smoke smells. 
I think The United States would be a better place if the government took its job of providing good information to its citizens more seriously.
I think The United States would be a better place if the government took its job of providing good information to its citizens more seriously.
If you can't see the hypocrisy of platform party politics (on both sides) then you are the ideal voter for these candidates. At least you got that going for you.
I didn't think pot was a partisan issue. I know lots of conservatives who are for legalization. I'm not sold myself even though I know it isn't that harmful. My worry is that it seems to be a gateway drug. "But studies show..." Screw studies. Go ask any meth cocaine heroin etc user what their first drug was and what percentage would say pot? If you don't say its high you're delerious or lying. No I don't mean every pothead uses other drugs, but for a lot of people experimenting with pot will lead and has led to experimenting with others.
Hmmmmm...and I thought 67 wins divided by 7 full seasons equaled 9.6 wins per season. You must be using New Math.
I used to be naive and demonize it. Its been the best treatment i have had for chronic pain. By far.
Of course they both play politics, but that's not what your post stated. The way your post reads is silly; maybe you didn't state it the way you wanted to state it.
Of course they both play politics, but that's not what your post stated. The way your post reads is silly; maybe you didn't state it the way you wanted to state it.
Interested in who you listen to because the right does not use these platforms anymore.
Go ask a fat person what their 1st soda or potato chip was. Everything is a gateway. Gateway drug is one of the stupidest terms ever created. Probably half the US (150 million ppl - maybe more) have smoked weed and not done "harder" drugs. Sure some people do, but just like everything else you're never going to fully stop people from doing what they want.
My mom is 60+. She thinks the Maryjowanna is the devil.
I dont argue with her about it. Raised on weed is the evil propaganda.
I dont argue with her about it. Raised on weed is the evil propaganda.
...........................fascist..liberal**
highly regulated capital...yep......yep
dependence on state........yep......yep
eschews rule of law........yep......yep
graduated income tax.......yep......yep
national health care.......yep......yep
restricted speech..........yep......yep
highly regulated economy...yep......yep
believes in thought crime..yep......yep
less individual liberty....yep......yep
federalized education......yep......yep
abortion/euthanasia........yep......yep
crony capitalism...........yep......yep
powerful central govt......yep......yep
ruling elite class.........yep......yep
group entitlement..........yep......yep
The list could go on but is sufficient to make my point.
Would Adolph be a bigger fan of the policies of Barack O or Thomas J?
Just sayin'...
Go Blue!
** sorry about the dots, tried fixed length courier but looks like the data gets trimmed of excess spaces so dots it is.
Last edited:
It'll be federally legal soon enough, no later than spring 2017 is my prediction, as of today.
highly regulated capital...yep......yep
dependence on state........yep......yep
eschews rule of law........yep......yep
graduated income tax.......yep......yep
national health care.......yep......yep
restricted speech..........yep......yep
highly regulated economy...yep......yep
believes in thought crime..yep......yep
less individual liberty....yep......yep
federalized education......yep......yep
abortion/euthanasia........yep......yep
crony capitalism...........yep......yep
powerful central govt......yep......yep
ruling elite class.........yep......yep
group entitlement..........yep......yep The list could go on but is sufficient to make my point.
Would Adolph be a bigger fan of the policies of Barack O or Thomas J?
Just sayin'...
Go Blue!
** sorry about the dots, tried fixed length courier but looks like the data gets trimmed of excess spaces so dots it is.[/QUOTE]
I don't know where you got your "facts", but by and in large they are misleading at best and grossly false at worst. Let's just take one as an example. Some liberals are for euthanasia as a CHOICE for the chronically ill and/or in pain. Under the Nazi regime euthanasia was not a choice; euthanasia was mandated for those deemed as unacceptable by the state, e.g. the "feeble-minded" or "homosexuals". OTOH it was NOT available to any others as a choice, in fact it was against the law. Similarly, abortion was not available as a choice, it was mandated by the state in certain situations, and outlawed for the average person. In fact, for "pure" Aryan stock it was a crime against the state to have an abortion, as it deprived the state of the ideal soldier/citizen. Not even remotely similar. Hitler despised the Weimer Democracy as "weak-minded" liberals (see Kershaw's 2 volume biography of Hitler, particularly the first volume-Nemesis; see also Bullock's definitive Hitler-A Study in Tyranny). Himmler believed and preached that the "True Aryan" was the polar opposite of a liberal (see Manvell and Fraenkel's (sp) definitive biography of Himmler). Hitler's primary supporters were right-wing industrialists (See Bullock, Kershaw and Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich), who believed that they could use and control Hitler, but backed away from him when his proposed policies became even too far right for them.
I'd suggest that you read, oh, at least Bullock, as it still considered the definitive biography of Hitler despite its age, rather than relying on gross generalizations and downright lies. Or, while Bullock died about 10-15 years ago, Kershaw is still around and is considered by most as the leading living expert on Hitler. Maybe you should contact him and suggest that Hitler was a liberal. It's very possible that, by making such an absurd suggestion, he will write you off as a fool, but he might respond and put you straight.
I would agree, and the reason is money. Colorado is bringing in 5 million a month in pot taxes. The feds are missing out.
If you extrapolate that out with some fuzzy math (5 million x 12 months x 50 states) that comes to about 3 billion a year.
http://time.com/4003262/colorado-pot-revenue/
Last edited:
Yes we agree Hitler was supported by the crony capitalists of the yesteryear just like the left are supported by special interest green crony capitalists of today...that was my point.
Liberal is often an abused word and the context in which I used it was Liberal = Leftist, Liberal being the more commonly used term.
If you would prefer I said 'Hitler was a leftist' then I am happy to rephrase the comment.
One thing that is clear is that liberals, leftists, socialists, fascist, marxists etc are all in fact state-ists.
They all believe in the state and their ability to run others lives in an efficient and utilitarian manner based on their own peculiar morality.
Hitler and modern leftists agree on the fundamental principle that the "State" is the best/only vehicle for effecting social change.
Hitler was undoubtedly a leftist. Liberals are undoubtedly leftists.
If A = C and B = C then A = B. Right?
Transitive Relation. Science.
If you disagree then answer the question about who's policies Hitler would agree with Obama or Jefferson.
It is self evident.
Go Blue!
Do you, in fact, operate a vehicle while you're getting high? Please let me know, so that I can stay the hell away from you on the road.
If you really feel this way, and if you had any idea how many people do drive high, you would never leave your driveway.
Actually, you apparently have a reading problem. My point was that Hitler was NOT controlled by crony capitalism (assuming I understand your definition of it). We really don't agree on that because it simply is not true. The Krupps and Fabers of Germany thought they could control Hitler. Some backed off when he went too far to the right (or became too much of a Rightist to use your jargon) for even them. Others continued to try and assert control but before 1932 Hitler only pretended to go along with them to get their money, and after 1932 he paid absolutely no attention to them. He was never even partially controlled by the German capitalists.
To answer your last question, Hitler would agree with neither the policies of Obama or Jefferson, because they bear absolutely no relationship to his fundamental beliefs. He really would not have even understood either of them. Hitler was about nothing but the Germanic people and his vision for them. According to him, the state, as you define it, was meaningless. Germany existed as any place where the Germanic people gathered. That was why he had no issue with demanding annexation of areas such as the Sudetenland and Austria. To him, they were already part of a greater Germany, given their large population of Germanic peoples. Therefore, even under your "throw in everything including the kitchen sink" definition of state-ist, he was not a state-ist.
Hitler never believed that the state was the best tool for effectuating social change, unless you consider he alone as "the state". He abolished the Reichstag, because he was the only one who understood his vision for the Germanic people. His dictates and his alone ruled Germany after 1932.
That's it for my discussion of this, as you can live in your fantasy land all you want. I used to believe in Pogo Possum's "T'aint' no shame to be stupid" but now I tend to go with Harlan Ellison's "You are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your informed opinion." Under either you are an epic fail.
I like this game. So if:
Brady Hoke = Michigan Man and Jim Harbaugh = Michigan Man, the Brady Hoke = Jim Harbaugh. Enjoy your season!
Really, the last thing this board needs is another liberal bashing personality from another fan base. We have plenty liberal bashers of our own, but thanks so much for stopping by.
And Hitler, Sir, would have agreed with neither Obama or Jefferson. Comparing Barack Obama to Hitler says much about you, but little about the President of the United States.
Hitler was NOT a utilitarian and in fact it's complete opposite. He did not believe in the greatest good for the greatest amount. He did not think states of pleasure and pain were intrinsically valuable and everyone deserving of moral status in virtue of experiencing them. He did not think of government as a tool to secure this moral utopia.
He was an ELITIST autocrat who thought Aryans were superior to non-Aryans. His view of persons was unequivocally conservative, I use that term in the sense of it not being contemporary. If you want to see liberal and progressive during Hitler's life, look at Britain, look at John Stuart Mill. He was a utilitarian! Hitler was stuck in the Lamarckian dark ages and thought blood-mixing would result an inferior human being. There is nothing progressive about his view of persons or his morality.
In any case, the whole discussion is stupid because the terms conservative, liberal, leftist, and rightist have been fluid throughout history and can all be abused. That is what is going on here, you are blatantly abusing the terms. So when you insist the most infamous person in history is a liberal because you can draw some facile associations between him and this broader ideology - as if that's a good argument for your position - you should expect to get push back.
Now you think the association is "self evident." How convenient.
Last edited:
I never said Hitler was controlled by anybody, I said 'supported' and you agreed.
I did not bash anybody.
I never compared Obama to Hitler anymore than I compared Jefferson to Hitler, I asked who's policies he would have been a fan of or agreed with.
Go Blue!
Then the answer is still Jefferson because the man was on the wrong side of the issue of slavery.
No wonder the driving habits have gotten worse over the years, then. But I think driving while on the phone should be illegal, too. But that all being said......it still doesn't make it right just because people are doing it.
I said I was done but I will come back to admit possibly causing some confusion. Arguably my bad with semantics. But they never supported his general beliefs. By control, I meant that they believed that they could turn him to their beliefs and what they wanted to see from Germany's leader. They fundamentally disagreed with his positions on every major point, except the rearming of Germany, since many of them were munitions makers that had seen hard times after the Treaty of Versailles, BUT he was far, far closer to their ultra-conservative ideas than any of the other party leaders that were in power or gaining power, such as the Weimar Democrats or the Bolsheviks. So they tried to use their money to mold him into what they wanted. However, Hitler would have none of it. They didn't support Hitler as he was, they supported what they thought their money could turn him into. A significant number of the industrialists abandoned their attempts to mold Hitler prior to 1932; after 1932 they pretty much all abandoned their attempts. But none of that is unique to either the left or the right. Capitalists support and hence try to control whoever is in power or looks likely to obtain power, right or left.
And CC Lemming, you are so right. Vic has created a definition of "liberal/leftist" that bears no relationship to reality. So, of course, he can fit anyone he wants under the umbrella of that definition. It reminds me of the of the Intelligent Creationists who created a new definition of macroevolution that bore no relationship to the scientific definition of the term. Under their definition, direct observational data had to be obtained to establish macroevolution, which of course was impossible since it would have required direct observational data over hundreds of thousands of years at a minimum. But by creating that straw man, that bore no relationship to the actual science of evolution, they could loudly proclaim that "macroevolution simply has not been proven".
CC and HuskerBlue I have already conceded that leftist or better yet statist would have been a better term than liberal.
You are both correct the word liberal is oft abused and misunderstood, I stated so myself.
I call myself conservative but I identify as a liberal in the classical sense; private property, free market economy, rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and peace based on free trade.
Using this definition of conservative I cannot for the life of me identify the things that Hitler did that were conservative.
I noticed that you two bandied the word conservative about when assigning Hitler's worst tendencies without attempting a definition.
Thus, if I am guilty of a full broadside saying 'Hitler was a liberal' you are both guilty as well.
Clearly I am out of step with the modern notion of liberal which has degenerated into egalitarian statism which doesn't give a rip about liberty only desirable outcomes as defined by political elites.
All I did was put the positions of both movements on the table.
Truth be told you and others were more than happy to grind over the meaning of word liberal, insult, make stuff up and put words in my mouth.
The only real response I got to the positions was HuskerBlue's spirited defense of Hitlers pro-life sentiment.
I mean...really...who knew?
Anyway you guys are pegging the shrill-o-meter, I was hoping for better and you have become predictably tedious, no offense. Out.
Oh and btw decriminalize pot...its a freedom thing.
Go Blue!
You are both correct the word liberal is oft abused and misunderstood, I stated so myself.
I call myself conservative but I identify as a liberal in the classical sense; private property, free market economy, rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and peace based on free trade.
Using this definition of conservative I cannot for the life of me identify the things that Hitler did that were conservative.
I noticed that you two bandied the word conservative about when assigning Hitler's worst tendencies without attempting a definition.
Thus, if I am guilty of a full broadside saying 'Hitler was a liberal' you are both guilty as well.
Clearly I am out of step with the modern notion of liberal which has degenerated into egalitarian statism which doesn't give a rip about liberty only desirable outcomes as defined by political elites.
All I did was put the positions of both movements on the table.
Truth be told you and others were more than happy to grind over the meaning of word liberal, insult, make stuff up and put words in my mouth.
The only real response I got to the positions was HuskerBlue's spirited defense of Hitlers pro-life sentiment.
I mean...really...who knew?
Anyway you guys are pegging the shrill-o-meter, I was hoping for better and you have become predictably tedious, no offense. Out.
Oh and btw decriminalize pot...its a freedom thing.
Go Blue!
Just legalize it and tax it heavily. As stated above Colorado is making bank for doing nothing and freeing up law enforcement resources to fight real crime. Seems like a win-win.
No. I'm not an idiot. Do you operate a vehicle after having a few drinks? It's absolutely no different.
