|
Green_T


Registered: 10/02/08
Posts: 4,042
Loc: UK
|
The case against legalizing marijuana in California
#13282225 - 10/03/10 01:19 AM (13 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The case against legalizing marijuana in California Oct. 3, 2010 - Philadelphia Inquirer
Edwin Meese III is a former attorney general of the United States and chairman of the Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
Charles Stimson is a senior legal fellow at Heritage and author of Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No
Advocates of legalizing marijuana have been blowing a lot of smoke in the debate over California's Proposition 19.
For starters, there's the fiction that marijuana is no different from alcohol. Indeed, the difference in health effects is striking.
The benefits of moderate alcohol consumption - reduced risk of heart disease, stroke, gallstones, diabetes, and death from a heart attack - are well-documented. There's even evidence that alcohol helps keep the mind sharp as one ages.
No one has ever associated pot consumption with mental acuity. Quite the opposite: Marijuana use has been shown to impair memory and inhibit learning ability. Among students, marijuana use is strongly associated with lower test scores and lower educational attainment. Chemically, marijuana is more like "harder" drugs - cocaine, heroin, speed, and the psychedelics - than a glass of wine or a cocktail. One study found that extended use may even lead to psychosis.
There are physical effects, too. Lung researchers report that smoking a couple of joints does more damage than a whole pack of Marlboros, and contains toxic compounds like ammonia and hydrogen cyanide. For many, pot is addictive. A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that more than 30 percent of pot smokers were dependent on the drug to the point of demonstrating signs of withdrawal and compulsive behavior. Reports from drug-abuse help lines and treatment facilities show that marijuana addiction is a major problem.
Negative social effects abound as well. Take crime. Amsterdam shows what happens when marijuana is available, legally and in abundance. Amsterdam is one of Europe's most violent cities, and Dutch officials pin the blame on their liberal drug policies. A report by four government ministries finds that drug-related crime places a heavy burden on local authorities and that criminal organizations are increasingly muscling their way into the drug market, using it as a base for international operations.
As California debates legalization, Dutch officials are retooling their laws and shutting down marijuana dispensaries "to tackle the nuisance associated with them and manage crime risks more effectively."
Legalization hasn't helped the Dutch keep marijuana from minors either. Marijuana use is higher among children there than anywhere else in Europe.
Legalization also alters social norms. More Dutch children smoke pot because the social stigma against it has dissipated. The same thing will happen in California if Prop 19 is passed next month.
Prop 19 pushers argue that by taxing and regulating marijuana, the state will reap a tax windfall. But the act would let every landowner grow enough marijuana to produce 24,000 to 240,000 joints a year for "personal consumption." Who would pay the $50-per-ounce tax on marijuana (a 100 percent tax) when he could grow it himself or buy some (illegally) from a neighbor.
Regular tobacco does not carry its economic weight. In 2007, the government collected $25 billion in tobacco taxes but spent more than $200 billion per year to cover health and other tobacco-related costs. It is the same with alcohol: In 2007, governments collected $14 billion in alcohol taxes but spent $185 billion to cover health, crime, and other alcohol-related costs. The economics of legalized marijuana will be no different, and perhaps worse.
Then there are the practical problems of Prop 19. Homeowners growing pot in their backyards will become targets for pot thieves and attendant crime, just as areas immediately around medical-marijuana dispensaries have already experienced an uptick in crime. And there remains the very real fact that possession, cultivation, and consumption of marijuana are still crimes under federal law - an inconvenient truth the act simply ignores. What are federal law enforcement officers to do?
Legalizing marijuana would serve little purpose other than to worsen the state's drug problems - addiction, violence, disorder, and death. Nor will such legalization produce a tax windfall for the state; rather, it will end up costing Californians billions in increased social costs.
Sound public policy should be based on facts, not smoke.
(author's email available on source page.)
--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" - Thomas Jefferson Legalize Meth | Drug War Victims
|
Green_T


Registered: 10/02/08
Posts: 4,042
Loc: UK
|
Re: The case against legalizing marijuana in California [Re: Green_T] 1
#13282232 - 10/03/10 01:21 AM (13 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
This article is full of inaccuracies. If anyone here lives in Philly, please contact the editor and tell them what a crock of shit/propaganda this article is.
|
AsAboveSoBelow
The matrix has you


Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 2,515
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: The case against legalizing marijuana in California [Re: Green_T]
#13282258 - 10/03/10 01:37 AM (13 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I stopped reading after: "Edwin Meese III is a former attorney general of the United States and chairman of the Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies"
--------------------
You're gonna get hurt real bad They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind
|
stew248
Stranger


Registered: 09/28/02
Posts: 1,730
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: The case against legalizing marijuana in California [Re: AsAboveSoBelow]
#13282304 - 10/03/10 01:55 AM (13 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Did they have Sarah Palin whip this one up? Or did they find some other brain dead bigot?
--------------------
|
That Cenex Guy
The Dark Defender



Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 360
|
Re: The case against legalizing marijuana in California [Re: stew248]
#13282400 - 10/03/10 03:03 AM (13 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I like how they fail to mention the fact alcohol can kill you, while weed just makes you feel awesome and then sleep really well.
|
Green_T


Registered: 10/02/08
Posts: 4,042
Loc: UK
|
Re: The case against legalizing marijuana in California [Re: That Cenex Guy] 1
#13282449 - 10/03/10 03:25 AM (13 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I realized the Philly Inquirer also had an article by LEAP, so I think that balances out this horrible propaganda piece. However, the LEAP guy is arguing on different terms.
I think it is best to counter prohibitionists on their terms. For example, the leap argument is why the war on drugs has failed, but not about how drugs aren't as bad as this asshole makes them out to be. Before you can debate someone, you have to understand where they are coming from. If they are saying "think of the children" and you are saying "its my right", its a different argument. You need to say "think of the children, legalization protects them more".
Here are some claims that need to be countered:
1) The benefits of moderate alcohol consumption what about the benefits of marijuana, and the detriments of alcohol? This guy is arguing we SHOULD drink, but not smoke. Bullshit. Also arguing alcohol increases mental acuity- maybe he should watch Jersey Shore.
2)Chemically, marijuana is more like "harder" drugs - cocaine, heroin, speed, and the psychedelics - than a glass of wine or a cocktail. One study found that extended use may even lead to psychosis. Alcohol is much more similar to harder drugs. One study suggesting it MIGHT lead to psychosis is not accepted by the scientific community- there needs to be more, and peer reviewed.
3) For many, pot is addictive. A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that more than 30 percent of pot smokers were dependent on the drug to the point of demonstrating signs of withdrawal and compulsive behavior. Reports from drug-abuse help lines and treatment facilities show that marijuana addiction is a major problem. Tobacco is more addictive, and so is coffee. What are the problems associated with "marijuana addiction"? prostitution? Violent crime? No, that's alcohol.
4) Amsterdam is one of Europe's most violent cities, and Dutch officials pin the blame on their liberal drug policies. A report by four government ministries finds that drug-related crime places a heavy burden on local authorities and that criminal organizations are increasingly muscling their way into the drug market, using it as a base for international operations. This is such bull. London/Manchester/Liverpool/Glasgow/Paris are much more violent than Amsterdam. The crime isn't marijuana related, its prohibition related. Furthermore, if the Netherlands is a hub for international trafficking, it might be because it has the busiest port in the world (Rotterdam) and not because of the fact they allow people to smoke a plant.
5) As California debates legalization, Dutch officials are retooling their laws and shutting down marijuana dispensaries "to tackle the nuisance associated with them and manage crime risks more effectively." The "nuisance" is Belgians crossing the border because they can't smoke in their own country. The "nuisance" refers to traffic jams.
6) Legalization hasn't helped the Dutch keep marijuana from minors either. Marijuana use is higher among children there than anywhere else in Europe. Flat out untrue.
7) Legalization also alters social norms. More Dutch children smoke pot because the social stigma against it has dissipated. The same thing will happen in California if Prop 19 is passed next month. Also, flat out untrue.
8) Prop 19 pushers argue that by taxing and regulating marijuana, the state will reap a tax windfall. But the act would let every landowner grow enough marijuana to produce 24,000 to 240,000 joints a year for "personal consumption." Who would pay the $50-per-ounce tax on marijuana (a 100 percent tax) when he could grow it himself or buy some (illegally) from a neighbor. The 240,000 joints per year has been disputed, ever since this same bullshit came out. I'd buy my marijuana from the store and pay tax. Anyone with a full time job isn't going to be able to tend to plants, nor invest in the equipment. You could buy better from a store than you could grow, in most cases.
9)In 2007, governments collected $14 billion in alcohol taxes but spent $185 billion to cover health, crime, and other alcohol-related costs. The economics of legalized marijuana will be no different, and perhaps worse. Pure speculation. Marijuana does not create non-prohibition crime, unlike alcohol. I've yet to hear of a domestic assault or date-rape under the effects of marijuana.
10)Then there are the practical problems of Prop 19. Homeowners growing pot in their backyards will become targets for pot thieves and attendant crime, just as areas immediately around medical-marijuana dispensaries have already experienced an uptick in crime. If it is legalized, the incentive to steal would drop dramatically. Thats what you get with an artificially inflated price. News flash: nobody robs liquor stores for the liquor anymore.
11) And there remains the very real fact that possession, cultivation, and consumption of marijuana are still crimes under federal law - an inconvenient truth the act simply ignores. What are federal law enforcement officers to do? The feds can fuck off and leave the state to itself.
12) Legalizing marijuana would serve little purpose other than to worsen the state's drug problems - addiction, violence, disorder, and death. Nor will such legalization produce a tax windfall for the state; rather, it will end up costing Californians billions in increased social costs. Marijuana does not result in violence or death.
|
auronlives69
psychedelic monk



Registered: 04/19/09
Posts: 655
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
|
Re: The case against legalizing marijuana in California [Re: Green_T]
#13282564 - 10/03/10 04:59 AM (13 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
well thats a bold statment to make
~The benefits of moderate alcohol consumption - reduced risk of heart disease, stroke, gallstones, diabetes, and death from a heart attack - are well-documented. There's even evidence that alcohol helps keep the mind sharp as one ages~
ey what about all the people in jail for dui's/domestic violence people with cirrosis, brain cell damage, alcohol poisoning, ulcers
im shure weed doesnt cause any of the above
|
guest1
Mycena




Registered: 05/25/09
Posts: 852
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: The case against legalizing marijuana in California [Re: Green_T]
#13282568 - 10/03/10 05:01 AM (13 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
OBVIOUSLY The writer of this story was given funding by the beer company, man, those darn beer companies just don't give up. This isn't a case against why to vote no, this is a case to go buy beer after reading this.
Quote:
The benefits of moderate alcohol consumption - reduced risk of heart disease, stroke, gallstones, diabetes, and death from a heart attack - are well-documented. There's even evidence that alcohol helps keep the mind sharp as one ages.
That is where they stop talking about alcohol, so according to an ignorant reader, alcohol is healthy medicine and they should go out and buy some and keep it in their medicine cabinet and not worry at all because apparently there are NO SIDE EFFECTS AT ALL. Yeah, don't mention death, violence, alcohol poisoning, drunk driving, etc.

"alcohol helps keep the mind sharp" LMAO. Where in the world did they get that?
|
AsAboveSoBelow
The matrix has you


Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 2,515
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: The case against legalizing marijuana in California [Re: guest1]
#13282655 - 10/03/10 05:56 AM (13 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The dude is called "Edwin Meese III" , is part of the conservative Heritage Foundation think-tank, and used to be an ATTORNEY GENERAL. Need more be said? Other than a drug czar, you couldn't find a more biased writer
--------------------
You're gonna get hurt real bad They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind
Edited by AsAboveSoBelow (10/03/10 05:57 AM)
|
Odd_Nonposter
Unrecognizable



Registered: 06/26/10
Posts: 430
Loc: Ohio
Last seen: 2 years, 6 months
|
Re: The case against legalizing marijuana in California [Re: Green_T]
#13282993 - 10/03/10 08:41 AM (13 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Green_T said: The case against legalizing marijuana in California Oct. 3, 2010 - Philadelphia Inquirer
...
Negative social effects abound as well. Take crime. Amsterdam shows what happens when marijuana is available, legally and in abundance. Amsterdam is one of Europe's most violent cities, and Dutch officials pin the blame on their liberal drug policies. A report by four government ministries finds that drug-related crime places a heavy burden on local authorities and that criminal organizations are increasingly muscling their way into the drug market, using it as a base for international operations.
As California debates legalization, Dutch officials are retooling their laws and shutting down marijuana dispensaries "to tackle the nuisance associated with them and manage crime risks more effectively."
Legalization hasn't helped the Dutch keep marijuana from minors either. Marijuana use is higher among children there than anywhere else in Europe.
Legalization also alters social norms. More Dutch children smoke pot because the social stigma against it has dissipated. The same thing will happen in California if Prop 19 is passed next month.
...
I counter with this letter by a respected Dutch psychiatrist: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/13146658#13146658
Quote:
To the Editors of the Los Angeles Times:
The recent Op-Ed authored by current and former American “drug czars” once again misrepresented the Dutch experience with cannabis “coffee shops” as a warning to Americans about removing cannabis from the black market.
First, they refer to “Amsterdam’s ‘coffee shop’ marijuana sales.” Cannabis coffee shops are not just restricted to Amsterdam. Local councils have the right to decide whether or not to allow coffee shops, and they can be found in more than 50 cities and towns across the country, not just in tourist centers, like the capital. Some coffeeshops have even been established by local councils, because the situation without decriminalized access to cannabis for adults was worse.
Right now, only the retail sale of five grams is tolerated, so black market production remains a problem, just as it is in the US. The mayors of a majority of the cities with coffeeshops have urged the national government to also decriminalize growth, wholesale and transport – the supply side.
A poll taken earlier this year indicated that some 50% of the Dutch population thinks cannabis should be fully legalized while only 25% wanted a complete ban.
Second, while it is true that the number of coffee shops has fallen from its peak of around 2,500 throughout the country, there are still more than 700 – if that is a “few hundred”, then okay.
Third, the problems with “drug tourists” are largely confined to cities and small towns near our borders with Germany and Belgium. These problems, mostly involving traffic jams, are at least as much the result of cannabis prohibition in our neighboring countries as they are the result of Dutch tolerance.
Fourth, “public nuisance problems” with the coffee shops are minimal when compared with bars, as is demonstrated by the rarity of calls for the police for problems at coffee shops.
Fifth, it is true that lifetime and “past-month” use rates did increase back in the seventies and eighties, but the Czars shamefully failed to report that there were comparable and larger increases in cannabis use in our neighboring countries which continued complete prohibition.
Most outrageously, the drug czars ignore the well known and undisputed statistics that show that Dutch use of cannabis remains about half that of the US and is comparable to – or less than – use in our neighboring countries with more repressive policies. Moreover, Dutch heroin use rates are also less than half of US rates. We attribute that fact to what we call the “separation of the markets” for hard and soft drugs.
My organization, ENCOD, European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies, spreads the scientifically based claim that the theory of prohibition has been falsified by the Dutch experience with cannabis decriminalization.
It is my firm belief that the American people, and certainly Californians, would support decriminalizing drugs and regulating drug markets, if only they knew that the drug problem in their country is much worse than in countries with more liberal policies. The problem is that Americans do know that their country has a serious drug problem, but they also believe or are convinced that in the Netherlands and other European countries the situation is even worse. This is what they have heard from their governments and drug czars.
There is a tradition of lies being told by US officials, especially about the Netherlands. An earlier drug czar, I believe it was Lee Brown, warned that visiting Amsterdam means stumbling over junkies in the center of town. In 1998, just before the start of a “fact-finding mission” to the Netherlands, then US Drug Czar General Barry McCaffrey claimed that Dutch drug policy was an “unmitigated disaster”. He claimed that the U.S. had less than half the murder rate of the Netherlands — 8.22 murders per 100,000 people in 1995 compared to 17.58 in the Netherlands. “That’s drugs,” he explained.
The Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics issued a special press release explaining that the actual Dutch murder rate is 1.8 per 100,000 people, or less than one-quarter the U.S. murder rate.
It is not known whether McCaffrey understood the implications of the link which he implied between murder rate and drug policy for the American situation.
I hope that the American people will at least have access to accurate information when they decide what cannabis policies will work best. Americans have not ceased to be smart or pragmatic. They have been systematically misled. If they absorb the knowledge about the state of the drug problem in their own country and elsewhere, I cannot imagine that they will continue to support drug prohibition.
Dr. Frederik Polak Amsterdam Psychiatrist President of ENCOD, European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies
Go fuck yourself, Edwin.
|
5-HT2A

Registered: 01/30/10
Posts: 1,794
|
Re: The case against legalizing marijuana in California [Re: Odd_Nonposter]
#13283371 - 10/03/10 10:34 AM (13 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
HUGE amounts of bullshit in this one.
|
Rogerdodger91
Psychedelic Rocker



Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 100
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Last seen: 13 years, 7 days
|
Re: The case against legalizing marijuana in California [Re: 5-HT2A]
#13283710 - 10/03/10 12:01 PM (13 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Id tear this dude up in a debate. Alcohol has only been proven to have health benifits when you have a glass of red wine once a day. Well lets look at methamphetamine. Recent studies have shown that methamphetamine in small amounts help reduce and turn around stroke damage in mice. (http://www.webcitation.org/5drWLLkEb) Does that mean we should all be buying street meth to take in small amounts to try and avoid strokes? No. The point is that the majority of people who drink, do so to get drunk. Anytime you take alcohol in a recreational excessive way (as pretty much everyone who drinks does) you are risking brain damage, increased heart disease and liver problems.
Okay now lets start looking at the propaganda people use against marijuana by stating its "fact".
http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html We will use this as a source of the governments propaganda.
First you notice in the way the drug is abused section they severely have certain facts misinterpreted. First of all, they strike people with fear by saying how marijuana is "abused". Look lets be realistic here. By saying abusing you put pot smokers in the same league as heroine addicts and meth addicts by the propaganda that everyone who smokes is going to be a junkie needing their "fix". Even later in the article is states that marijuana has affects to the brain much like harder drugs like heroine coke meth and psychedelic *lol on that last one causing brain damage* Also as you notice they forget to mention that most carcinogens and negative health affects come from the way of administration. People who smoke from papers and blunt wraps are doing more damage than THC alone from the way they are administering the drug. If you wanted to be more health conscious about smoking use a vaporizer or eat thc goodies. Also i notice that the article doesnt really make them seem like they know what they are talking about "mixing marijuana with food and tea". For a site who is trying to back up scientific evidence as fact i would think saying that they extract the thc with alcohol or butter to make foods with, shows they have a much better understanding of the drug they are demonizing.
Now lets confront the perspective of what the law makes illegal and what actually cause the health effects in weed. The laws of this country decriminalize THC. Not the burning of plant material and inhaling it. Anybody with a background in chemistry know that the combustion of bio carbons in theory should combust Carbon, Oxygen, and hydrogen into CO2 and Water. Unfortunately in a less then perfect world not all of the biocarbons combusts and you are left with carbon monoxide instead of Carbon dioxide. It is known fact that carbon monoxide causes many health problems especially when administered constantly everyday. But assuming that our cars everyday pump this into the air, im sure its safe to speculate that we cant use carbon monoxide as a basis of making a drug like tobacco or marijuana illegal. Im pretty sure car and oil tycoons wouldnt appreciate the officials they provide campaign money for attacking them on the basis that their products cause health problems for the entire world, and the future generations of the world. Now lets look at the facts that smoking a "blunt" is equivilent to smoking a pack of cigarettes. Im pretty sure that dealers arent adding carcinogens like ammonia to their weed to make you get high faster causing you to get addicted to a chemical that isnt addictive. Also where is the proof that marijuana smoking causes cancer? I dont see it anywhere, do you? Okay so they say marijuana causes brain damage and they got the studies on animals to prove it. What they dont tell you is that in those studies the animals were strapped up to marijuana smoke machines and were deprived of oxygen. With a lack of oxygen over long periods of time i pretty sure my brain would die too. I could go on forever. The point is most of these people are no different than the kid who writes a report using facts based on one report. If i was writing a paper about george washington and one source says hes a homosexual, does that make it true? No. You cant just display one "scientific" study as evidence as the governement did in that web page.
In my honest opinion i believe the government should spend more money on exploring the affects on THC instead of investing money in a drug war that is costing the lives of many people. Everytime a police officer is raiding a field in humboldt county, he could be saving the little girl who is being raped and murdered down the street from his normal patrol route. There is so many more violent crimes out there. Drug related or not that should be the governments main war on terror.
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!



Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: The case against legalizing marijuana in California [Re: Rogerdodger91]
#13284074 - 10/03/10 01:10 PM (13 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Green_T, I must compliment your patience in picking this article apart - I was just going to make a post that said "lol".
I'd like to be simply amused by how cherry-picked facts can be combined with conservative ideology to synthesize a litany of lies, but unfortunately there are plenty of people who will read this and take it seriously simply because they don't know any better.
Heritage Foundation
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
plustax
Stranger
Registered: 02/21/10
Posts: 396
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
|
Re: The case against legalizing marijuana in California [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
#13285813 - 10/03/10 07:13 PM (13 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I hate how the say alcohol has health benefits.
No, ethanol is a poison. The other things in red wine may be good for you, but the stuff that gets you fucked up is absolutely terrible for you.
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: The case against legalizing marijuana in California [Re: plustax]
#13286356 - 10/03/10 09:03 PM (13 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
This article is obviously meant to jab at prop 19. Frankly I think that the series of previous world leaders coming out publicly in favor of legalization has made it look respectable and this is a hack job article to try to bring back the fear on the issue.
I don't know who in their right mind would believe all this baloney though.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
Nymphaea
Money-less Wanderer



Registered: 04/16/09
Posts: 2,061
Loc: Mitten
Last seen: 9 days, 12 hours
|
Re: The case against legalizing marijuana in California [Re: stew248]
#13286703 - 10/03/10 10:24 PM (13 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
stew248 said: Did they have Sarah Palin whip this one up? Or did they find some other brain dead bigot? 
Well, Sarah Palin is in favor of marijuana decriminalization, so I am pretty damn sure she didn't write this.
Watch yourself with your dislike for conservatives, or it may become you who is being the bigot.
As to this article:
Edited by Nymphaea (10/03/10 10:25 PM)
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: The case against legalizing marijuana in California [Re: Nymphaea]
#13286959 - 10/03/10 11:35 PM (13 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nymphaea said:
Quote:
stew248 said: Did they have Sarah Palin whip this one up? Or did they find some other brain dead bigot? 
Well, Sarah Palin is in favor of marijuana decriminalization, so I am pretty damn sure she didn't write this.
So in other words they did find another brain dead bigot.
Come on though, Palin's opinions are often as social conservative as they are libertarian. Nobody who wasn't fool enough to listen to a damn thing she said after the media cameras were finally turned away from her retarded ass should be expected to know her position on prop 19.
However, on the other hand, stew you gotta get with the times man. You know who woulda been a perfect contemporary reference for that joke? Christine O'Donnell, just think there's at least a few offshoot jokes you could make if you used her too. I mean, Palin? Look Palin jokes are a renewable resource, as long as she is alive she will say and do shit worthy to end her up at the but of jokes. But not if people like you go about overusing this resource base. If people like you have to reach at Palin compulsively as a target of criticism against conservatives the jokes just won't be there for future generations. We seen what had happened to the nearly extincted W. Bush jokes, today they are outnumbered by Clinton blowjob jokes (which were made in a more sustainable fashion) when they were once majestically the most common line of humor in some comedian's acts. Right now the humor in Bush jokes is become so over tapped, that I'm not even sure my children will live to see the day when the humor stocks in those jokes will ever bounce back. Industry experts call this form of extinction "Commercial Extinction" or they call it FWD: horse fucks woman - she is into it. It really just depends on the industry your referring to.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
Edited by ScavengerType (10/03/10 11:39 PM)
|
Green_T


Registered: 10/02/08
Posts: 4,042
Loc: UK
|
Re: The case against legalizing marijuana in California [Re: ScavengerType]
#13287464 - 10/04/10 03:48 AM (13 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The good news is, even the layman will know this article reeks of shit upon reading the first few lines.
If you know about alcoholism, or people being killed by drunk drivers, you would realize this guy is distorting facts.
|
|