Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
Quote: Diploid said: Yeah yeah I agree mods should lead by example so:
...actually, I was wondering if this will have any effect on Obama's eventual policies re the DEA harassing medical marijuana dispensaries in California and other states.
I'm hoping that the days of the DEA threatening property seizure leading to landlords summarily evicting dispensaries as described here are over:
1. Obama has been nothing but deceitful on the marijuana issue but pretty much seems to have settled on "I don't care, fuck personal freedom"
2. People are fucking stupid. Like really stupid. I can guarentee if he every does anything now the local radio station will be full of idiots saying he is only talking/ doing (ya right) anything cuz of his brother's troubles.
I really think this is not positive- it will only make it harder for him to act disinterested and acting on philosophical "what's right" or "what makes sense for the country" grounds.
Just last night I heard people talking about the phelps smoking pot incident and talking about how it was so terrible. The guy's a fucking gold medalist and they're talking about how pot is so bad and what not when phelps has accomplished more this year than these idiots will in their life.
People know lots about drugs, and they use this great knowledge to form opinions, like: marijuana is about as bad as oxycontone (sic) and will get you addicted (by which I presume they refer to physical dependance rather than what addiction really means)
People know lots about drugs, and they use this great knowledge to form opinions, like
Read the thread in my sig to see how the government misinformation machine is so depressingly effective that even Shroomerites who should be well-informed on the matter sing the misinformation song with the best of them.
It really sucks and goes to show how totally hopeless it is trying to convince non-drug users to think about the issue rationally.
Humanity is a lost cause.
-------------------- Wanna hear something depressing? One out of four Shroomerites wants to lock me in a government cage for using a substance they don't like.
Yep. What boggles my mind is how people continue to fall for the bullshit.
First it was marijuana, then lsd, then crack, then extasy, then meth, then...
Guys, wake up. This shit is all just chemicals that can be used to do good or bad or nothing. How many people here talk about "yeah, marijuana should be legal, but fuck those people who do meth, that is bad"
So they think my grandpa who uses it for narcolepsy should be in jail? Oh, that's right, they only mean the sterotypical user who would be an alcoholic or a mess anyways. Only their laws don't distinguish, and would lock up everyone. But, you know, its "those people" they want to stop (jail). My grandpa just gets swept up in it (or maybe his doctor's permission means he shouldn't be jailed? So all else equal he should be jailed if he doesn't have a piece of paper? What does that have to do with anything? The paper doesn't determine whether his body is benifiting or not or whether he's a junky.)
Congrats on framing your objection correctly though! It isn't "This drug shouldn't be legal" it is "you should be jailed under all circumstances and have a criminal record that prevents employment". People get caught up in legalities and gloss over they are talking about prison.
Legality misses the point. It is Do I think everyone should be jailed for using something, nomatter why, I don't like?
Your sig is indeed frightening. Its scary to think people against marijuana prohibition are buying into the hype on other drugs too. Guys, its all just difference chemicals. No reason to lock up consenting adults.
If your against theft then lock up the thiefs. Violence? Yep, lock em up? Junkies? I don't think so, but even that would be better than everyone.
Stop labeling people felons and putting them in jail for personal choices that harm nobody.
It really sucks and goes to show how totally hopeless it is trying to convince non-drug users to think about the issue rationally.
Oh, and right on.
It is totally a class thing- which I think is the major motivator. It isn't this "they know pot will open your eyes" or "LSD threatens the power structure" or any of that bullshit. No, it is class and prejudice- same as other evils.
Why were those people condeming phelps?
Here's a gold medalist and they were better than him. He is one of "them" now. Those "drug users" (which don't include prozac takers, coffee drinkers, and muscle relaxant users somehow) are bad news.
So here's a way for people to feel better than a highly accomplished person!
Same as racism. "Those people" are bad news, they will mess up society, they are stupid and prone to violence.
Just like "drug users" are prone to theft and violence and other fantasies that depend on the availability heurisitic and prejudice as the basis.
I don't like pot and don't use it. I think it should be legal cuz its the rational and right thing to do. We need to get people to stop thinking about "should people use drugs" which is irrelevant but rather "should people that use arbitrarily defined substances be jailed and have a record preventing employment?"
It really pisses me off to here people talk about whether we want people using or selling drugs- as if the legality debate has anything to do with that. People do, geniuses! And we're not talking about whether they will continue, they will, but rather whether those we find will be jailed and made to suffer the rest of their life as second class citezins because they had some fun with a friend or used a substance not in favor.
It isn't a discusion of "legality" or "should they use drugs" it is a discusion over "should we throw them in jail and prevent them from getting good jobs and licenses"?
The focus on irrelevant issues like "should they..." really irritates me. How about, should we cage people who've done no harm? Should we take away their employability? And does our efforts affect the rate of drug use or the safety of it at all? Actually it does- it makes drug use more prevalent and unsafe (look at studies comparing amsterdam youth's pot use to american cities and the obvious effects of no standards, relevant laws, and unknown manufacturers and a lack of legal recourse on product purity...)
As am I. I've always been amazed at the "my drug is better than your drug, thus my drug should be legal while your drug should be illegal" crowd. The hypocrisy is difficult to understand, especially coming from a group of people that, because of their drug use, claim to be more open minded or "enlightened" than others.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
As am I. I've always been amazed at the "my drug is better than your drug, thus my drug should be legal while your drug should be illegal" crowd. The hypocrisy is difficult to understand, especially coming from a group of people that, because of their drug use, claim to be more open minded or "enlightened" than others.
Well, I'm always amazed that intelligent people would support and defend a mindset and a political party that would see them all imprisoned for getting all fucked up by means other than alcohol, if ya know what I mean.
-------------------- What can we do to help you stop screaming?
Well, at least he's now on record opposing the DEA bullshit. It's a start...
--
DEA pot raids go on; Obama opposes President vowed to end policy
Stephen Dinan and Ben Conery THE WASHINGTON TIMES Thursday, February 5, 2009
Drug Enforcement Administration agents this week raided four medical marijuana shops in California, contrary to President Obama's campaign promises to stop the raids.
The White House said it expects those kinds of raids to end once Mr. Obama nominates someone to take charge of DEA, which is still run by Bush administration holdovers.
“The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws, and as he continues to appoint senior leadership to fill out the ranks of the federal government, he expects them to review their policies with that in mind," White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said.
Medical use of marijuana is legal under the law in California and a dozen other states, but the federal government under President Bush, bolstered by a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, argued that federal interests trumped state law.
Dogged by marijuana advocates throughout the campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly said he was opposed to using the federal government to raid medical marijuana shops, particularly because it was an infringement on states' decisions.
“I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue," Mr. Obama told the Mail Tribune newspaper in Oregon in March, during the Democratic primary campaign.
He told the newspaper the "basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that's entirely appropriate."
Mr. Obama is still filling key law enforcement posts. For now, DEA is run by acting Administrator Michele Leonhart, a Bush appointee.
Special Agent Sarah Pullen of the DEA's Los Angeles office said agents raided four marijuana dispensaries about noon Tuesday. Two were in Venice and one each was in Marina Del Rey and Playa Del Ray -- all in the Los Angeles area.
A man who answered the phone at Marina Caregivers in Marina Del Rey said his shop was the target of a raid but declined to elaborate, saying the shop was just trying to get back to operating.
Agent Pullen said the four raids seized $10,000 in cash and 224 kilograms of marijuana and marijuana-laced food, such as cookies. No one was arrested, she said, but the raid is part of an ongoing investigation seeking to trace the marijuana back to its suppliers or source.
She said agents have conducted 30 or 40 similar raids in the past several years, many of which resulted in prosecutions.
"It's clear that the DEA is showing no respect for President Obama's campaign promises," said Dan Bernath, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, which advocates for medical marijuana and for decriminalizing the drug.
California allows patients whose doctors prescribe marijuana to use the drug. The state has set up a registry to allow patients to obtain cards allowing them to possess, grow, transport and use marijuana.
Kris Hermes of Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy group in California, called the raids an attempt to undermine state law and said they were apparently conducted without the knowledge of Los Angeles city or police officials.
He said the DEA has raided five medical marijuana dispensaries in the state since Mr. Obama was inaugurated and that the first took place on Jan. 22 in South Lake Tahoe.
"President Obama needs to keep a promise he made, not just in one campaign stop, but in multiple speeches that he would not be spending Justice Department funds on these kinds of raids," Mr. Hermes said. "We do want to give him a little bit of leeway, but at the same time we're expecting him to stop this egregious enforcement policy that is continuing into his presidency."
He said he is aware that Mr. Obama has not installed his own DEA chief but that new Attorney General "Eric Holder can still suspend these types of operations."
The Justice Department referred questions to the White House.
-------------------- Wanna hear something depressing? One out of four Shroomerites wants to lock me in a government cage for using a substance they don't like.
Yeah, those campaign promises are pretty weak given marijuana isn't prescribed or prescribed like other drugs and its kinda hard to see how enforcing something legal under state law is circumventing state law any other conflict of laws scenario. We'll see, but given the great number of complaints about non-existant patient raids I was pretty pessimistic he was going to change any policy.
I'm just concerned about the principle of not repealing but not enforcing a law. Allows discriminatory prosecutions. I also am concerned about the president annulling laws, though I'm not sure if this is a legitimate concern legally or practically, I'd have to think more about it. Finally, I don't care for the focus on marijuana per se and not on your rights to your body and to be free from arrest for victimless acts or personal medical decisions- especially when substantial evidence exists on the topic.
I'm always shocked by the arbitrary ignorance and tyrany of pot smokers that think their drug is special and they shouldn't be jailed but others should. Disgusting.
Check out this article for example. Some pipe smoker is bitching about pipe and smoking bans but has the gall to criticize the government for not stemming the use of drugs! He also said he's in favor of banning smoking in restaurants cuz he doesn't like the smell of cigerettes. So the owner of the restaurant can't do things he doesn't like apparently, but he has the right to smoke pipes? How's that?
Quote:
It is now the determined effort of the government of British Columbia, to ban tobacco. Since 2008, no tobacconist (and there is only one premiere pipe tobacconist here), is allowed to visibly display ANY pipe, or tobacco-related products, to public view.
Living without a television or stereo; and taking no newspapers, I know only what I see (and, even that is too much); and my MacBook being my only concession to modern gadgetry, necessitated my own 15 minute 'investigation' on the Internet.
The results astounded me.
The government in Canada assists in the use of illegal drugs ...
... but enforces a ban on pipe tobacco !
[Here he whines about a program that gives tips to crack users to put over crack pipe ends to stop illness spread. It doesn't assist anyone since you can't smoke the drug or use it with the device It doesn't help you use the drug at all. It is just a cover. He's being dishonest] Madness!
These, then, are facts -
(I would not have the audacity to make these things up ... even if I wanted to) -
1. Supply the equipment needed; help and encourage minors and others … to use illegal drugs; (he just made this shit up)
2. Remove ordinary tobacco … make criminals out of mature adults … who want to quietly smoke their grandfather’s pipe. He just made this crap up about 'helping drug users' and children use drugs. The thing supplied is a cover for a tip of a pipe and doesn't allow you to smoke crack.
Now, I am the first to state that there was nothing more nauseating than to enter a room thick with the stench and sight of choking, hanging, 'ceiling-fog' from cigarette smokers. I most certainly welcomed the various bans on smoking inside public buildings. (If it doesn't inconvieniance me I support bans and taking rights away from buisness owners. Only if I enjoy the activity should the government not interfere with jail and fines)
But that has nothing to do with a man sitting alone in his study, the door to the garden wide open ... or sitting peacefully outdoors, to quietly enjoy a bowl of pipe tobacco.
These politicians do not speak of a crime-free society ... a drug free society seriously, does this guy not know what a drug is? the hypocrisy is overwhelming. He even wanted to ban smoking in bars cuz he didn't like the smell of cigerettes ... a violence-free society ... They do not return hard labour to prisons ... demand that people suffer the consequences of their own selfish actions ... or use products - whether alcohol, cars, medication, or tobacco - responsibly.
Anyone else blown away by the hypocrisy? I may leave him a comment and politely ask why the government isn't justified in molesting him but is in going after others? I mean he actually said he liked the government banning smoking in resteraunts and shit! Cuz he didn't like the smell... His prefrences beat others' property rights. Except when it comes to smoking pipes (not cigarettes apparently though- he doesn't like those)... then the government needs to step back!
Do people seriously not see the hypocrisy? Or the problem with letting the government molest others and presuming they won't go after you? Why is a pipe different? Everyone has a right to their property- including their body. Don't hurt another but you can do what you like with your stuff.
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Phred, Prisoner#1 1,219 topic views. 4 members, 1 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
