The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
Romney on Pot
 

UtahLama
Level 10

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Utah, USA
Posts: 6706

ZEB wrote:
UtahLama wrote:
LOL this thread again.



You are never going to change ZEB's mind because his stance is a MORAL one...and you cannot change morals.


If pot were legal, you would not see ZEB in this thread....just as you would not see him in a thread discussing the candidates stance on drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.


Give it up everybody.....I agree with ZEB 95% of the time, but you have a better chance of winning an argument with Professor X over toothpaste use.



You are actually wrong my friend. I oppose it on health grounds.


Then you must oppose alcohol, tobacco and sugar with the same zeal my friend.



Oh wait, they are legal.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

UtahLama
Level 10

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Utah, USA
Posts: 6706

ZEB wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
UtahLama wrote:
LOL this thread again.



You are never going to change ZEB's mind because his stance is a MORAL one...and you cannot change morals.


If pot were legal, you would not see ZEB in this thread....just as you would not see him in a thread discussing the candidates stance on drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.


Give it up everybody.....I agree with ZEB 95% of the time, but you have a better chance of winning an argument with Professor X over toothpaste use.



You are actually wrong my friend. I oppose it on health grounds. It's not a moral issue for me. But I do feel that I've done enough research to be comfortable with my position. Unlike the many who have opposed me on this thread (it's like um a plant maaaaaan) I actually bring facts to the table.


Not what you said earlier.


How is smoking pot immoral? I don't even understand that argument.



Because it's illegal....just ask my Mennonite mother.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pittbulll
Level 3

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 10819

UtahLama wrote:
ZEB wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
UtahLama wrote:
LOL this thread again.



You are never going to change ZEB's mind because his stance is a MORAL one...and you cannot change morals.


If pot were legal, you would not see ZEB in this thread....just as you would not see him in a thread discussing the candidates stance on drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.


Give it up everybody.....I agree with ZEB 95% of the time, but you have a better chance of winning an argument with Professor X over toothpaste use.



You are actually wrong my friend. I oppose it on health grounds. It's not a moral issue for me. But I do feel that I've done enough research to be comfortable with my position. Unlike the many who have opposed me on this thread (it's like um a plant maaaaaan) I actually bring facts to the table.


Not what you said earlier.


How is smoking pot immoral? I don't even understand that argument.



Because it's illegal....just ask my Mennonite mother.



My mother was the same way , she died from a systemic infection that resulted from the drug Remicade . The drug is used to supress the immune system when some one has an auto immune disorder. But I tried to get my mom to try marijuana first and her response was that is illegal there for immoral.

Most of the drugs they use for disease have many bad side effects and many people die from the different treatments

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

DoubleDuce
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Location:
Posts: 12531

ZEB wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
UtahLama wrote:
LOL this thread again.



You are never going to change ZEB's mind because his stance is a MORAL one...and you cannot change morals.


If pot were legal, you would not see ZEB in this thread....just as you would not see him in a thread discussing the candidates stance on drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.


Give it up everybody.....I agree with ZEB 95% of the time, but you have a better chance of winning an argument with Professor X over toothpaste use.



You are actually wrong my friend. I oppose it on health grounds. It's not a moral issue for me. But I do feel that I've done enough research to be comfortable with my position. Unlike the many who have opposed me on this thread (it's like um a plant maaaaaan) I actually bring facts to the table.


Not what you said earlier.

I'm assuming you are for criminalizing tabacco, alcohol, and the excessive use of salt too. Cause I can give you a ton of research proving all that is unhealthy.



Look at the damage sugar does , the cost to America is huge


The notion that unhealthy things should be criminalized because they are bad for you is pretty much both the dumbest and most ultra-big government belief there is.



Then you an argue for the legalization of heroin and other hard drugs, right?


No. I'm against you locking people up to prevent them from using them though.



Why do you want to punish (in any way) people for consuming something that is unhealthy. It appears you have a(one more) problem with your argument.


Uh, I just said I was against punishing them...

The hell are you talking about?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

DoubleDuce
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Location:
Posts: 12531

ZEB wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Hey, if you like smoking pot just say "I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal."

Is that so hard?


If you like government controlling people, just say "I like big government, and wish it could get bigger."

Is that so hard?



I like small government with good drug laws. And to say that you cannot have one without the other is one more argument that you will lose.


And libs like small government with "good" spending and tax laws.



If someone likes the national forrests and wants to preserve them by keeping a strong forrest rangers service are they automatically for big government?

Illogical.

But then you've not brought any logic to this debate from page one.


They are for increasing the size of government in regard to national forests.

Increasing the size and sway of the federal government isn't in favor of larger government.

Illogical.

But you're showing yourself to be either dumb or a troll in this entire thread.


You've not had an argument, or a fact, from page one and now you've reduced this to name calling. I like it go for it, it actually makes for a good exit for you.

Anyway....

Increasing, or maintaining the size of one government agency does not mean that one is in favor of increasing the size of the total government.

Why does everything have to be explained to you?



I've had plenty of simple rational logic in this thread which you have completely ignored. I, and others, have repeatedly asked you incredibly simple, direct yes or no questions. You have repeated completely ignored.

Exactly what the previous poster said. You aren't for small government, you are just for your brand of big government.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 19363

DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Hey, if you like smoking pot just say "I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal."

Is that so hard?


If you like government controlling people, just say "I like big government, and wish it could get bigger."

Is that so hard?



I like small government with good drug laws. And to say that you cannot have one without the other is one more argument that you will lose.


And libs like small government with "good" spending and tax laws.



If someone likes the national forrests and wants to preserve them by keeping a strong forrest rangers service are they automatically for big government?

Illogical.

But then you've not brought any logic to this debate from page one.


They are for increasing the size of government in regard to national forests.

Increasing the size and sway of the federal government isn't in favor of larger government.

Illogical.

But you're showing yourself to be either dumb or a troll in this entire thread.


You've not had an argument, or a fact, from page one and now you've reduced this to name calling. I like it go for it, it actually makes for a good exit for you.

Anyway....

Increasing, or maintaining the size of one government agency does not mean that one is in favor of increasing the size of the total government.

Why does everything have to be explained to you?



I've had plenty of simple rational logic in this thread which you have completely ignored. I, and others, have repeatedly asked you incredibly simple, direct yes or no questions. You have repeated completely ignored.

Exactly what the previous poster said. You aren't for small government, you are just for your brand of big government.



LOL

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Location: Austria
Posts: 24642

ZEB wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Hey, if you like smoking pot just say "I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal."

Is that so hard?


If you like government controlling people, just say "I like big government, and wish it could get bigger."

Is that so hard?



I like small government with good drug laws. And to say that you cannot have one without the other is one more argument that you will lose.


And libs like small government with "good" spending and tax laws.



If someone likes the national forrests and wants to preserve them by keeping a strong forrest rangers service are they automatically for big government?

Illogical.

But then you've not brought any logic to this debate from page one.


They are for increasing the size of government in regard to national forests.

Increasing the size and sway of the federal government isn't in favor of larger government.

Illogical.

But you're showing yourself to be either dumb or a troll in this entire thread.


You've not had an argument, or a fact, from page one and now you've reduced this to name calling. I like it go for it, it actually makes for a good exit for you.

Anyway....

Increasing, or maintaining the size of one government agency does not mean that one is in favor of increasing the size of the total government.

Why does everything have to be explained to you?



I've had plenty of simple rational logic in this thread which you have completely ignored. I, and others, have repeatedly asked you incredibly simple, direct yes or no questions. You have repeated completely ignored.

Exactly what the previous poster said. You aren't for small government, you are just for your brand of big government.



LOL


Oh my, shaking my head is more like it.

Lets, jail, jail, jail people who get high on things I dont approve of.

Because, that will solve all of lives problems.

Just like Jesus urged us to, he was big on prohibition that guy.

Meh, I feel like shaking dust off off my sandals now.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

USMCpoolee
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2008
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1134

A quick google and here are a few articles about the good side of weed.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...70417193338.htm

http://insciences.org/...article_id=4963

http://pr.cannazine.co.uk/...adhd-video.html

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Location: Austria
Posts: 24642

And just remember kids, vitis vinifera sativa = gift of God, cannabis sativa = jail time.

And this serves no purpose than to teach each new generation just how much contempt todays laws deserve, so I guess its legit, in a way.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pittbulll
Level 3

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 10819

USMCpoolee wrote:
A quick google and here are a few articles about the good side of weed.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...70417193338.htm

http://insciences.org/...article_id=4963

http://pr.cannazine.co.uk/...adhd-video.html




Any one that researches subjects knows there are many more positive aspects to marijuana than negatve

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Makavali
Level

Join date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 15701

ZEB wrote:
Increasing, or maintaining the size of one government agency does not mean that one is in favor of increasing the size of the total government.


Holy shit you stupid fuck, yes it does.

If you don't want a big government you hire a private company to protect the damn forest. What the fuck is wrong with you?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Location:
Posts: 6454

Makavali wrote:
"Increasing, or maintaining the size of one government agency does not mean that one is in favor of increasing the size of the total government."

Holy shit you stupid fuck, yes it does.

If you don't want a big government you hire a private company to protect the damn forest. What the fuck is wrong with you?


What on earth are you talking about? Who hires a private company to protect the forest? Is this forest on private land or land that belongs to the states? Mak, you need to stop hitting the bong there fella.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Makavali
Level

Join date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 15701

SexMachine wrote:
Makavali wrote:
"Increasing, or maintaining the size of one government agency does not mean that one is in favor of increasing the size of the total government."

Holy shit you stupid fuck, yes it does.

If you don't want a big government you hire a private company to protect the damn forest. What the fuck is wrong with you?


What on earth are you talking about? Who hires a private company to protect the forest? Is this forest on private land or land that belongs to the states? Mak, you need to stop hitting the bong there fella.


Expanding a part of the Government, any part, is making it bigger.

But no, small Government all the way, right folks?

Who hires a private company? Why wouldn't you?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Location:
Posts: 6454

Makavali wrote:

Expanding a part of the Government, any part, is making it bigger.



It's that simple huh?


But no, small Government all the way, right folks?


Fatuous. I'm in favour of a free market and limited government market regulation. But that doesn't mean I'm in favour of complete deregulation leaving the market open to bear raids and allowing commercial banks unlimited leverage. If you want no government then just be honest about it.


Who hires a private company?


Anyone who wants their goods or services...


Why wouldn't you?


Wouldn't I what mak?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Mick28
Level

Join date: Mar 2007
Location:
Posts: 3392

makavali is confused but that's nothing new most leftists are confused.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pittbulll
Level 3

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 10819

Makavali wrote:
SexMachine wrote:
Makavali wrote:
"Increasing, or maintaining the size of one government agency does not mean that one is in favor of increasing the size of the total government."

Holy shit you stupid fuck, yes it does.

If you don't want a big government you hire a private company to protect the damn forest. What the fuck is wrong with you?


What on earth are you talking about? Who hires a private company to protect the forest? Is this forest on private land or land that belongs to the states? Mak, you need to stop hitting the bong there fella.


Expanding a part of the Government, any part, is making it bigger.

But no, small Government all the way, right folks?

Who hires a private company? Why wouldn't you?


It is a lost cause, they do not understand the costs to American society this thing they call THE WAR ON DRUGS

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

UtahLama
Level 10

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Utah, USA
Posts: 6706

It just baffles me how normally level headed posters on this forum....lose their collective fucking minds over THC.

You guys must have had a lot of fun arguing why Alcohol should have remained illegal back in the 30's.

Because Sexmachine and ZEB are basically using the same arguments that the Women's Christian Temperance Union spewed forth.


"Protect the FAMILIES"

"Think of the CHILDREN"

The only people that make money off of THC being illegal are gangs/prison unions/and a monster fucking budget for the DEA.



  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pittbulll
Level 3

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 10819

UtahLama wrote:
It just baffles me how normally level headed posters on this forum....lose their collective fucking minds over THC.

You guys must have had a lot of fun arguing why Alcohol should have remained illegal back in the 30's.

Because Sexmachine and ZEB are basically using the same arguments that the Women's Christian Temperance Union spewed forth.


"Protect the FAMILIES"

"Think of the CHILDREN"

The only people that make money off of THC being illegal are gangs/prison unions/and a monster fucking budget for the DEA.






You must admit it is quite a feat to make something that grew in every ditch prior to prohibition worth more than gold

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

dk44
Level 1

Join date: Apr 2007
Location: Arkansas, USA
Posts: 2332

UtahLama wrote:
It just baffles me how normally level headed posters on this forum....lose their collective fucking minds over THC.

You guys must have had a lot of fun arguing why Alcohol should have remained illegal back in the 30's.

Because Sexmachine and ZEB are basically using the same arguments that the Women's Christian Temperance Union spewed forth.


"Protect the FAMILIES"

"Think of the CHILDREN"

The only people that make money off of THC being illegal are gangs/prison unions/and a monster fucking budget for the DEA.





Amen.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

BeefEater
Level 2

Join date: Dec 2004
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 927

My father recently passed away from pancreatic cancer. Cancer does not run in our family at all so he likely developed his cancer from Remicade infusions he was taking to treat his rheumatoid arthritis. After he would take an infusion of Remicade he was sick for at least 2 days afterwards. He found that using a vaporizer for marijuana not only helped ease his nausea from the Remicade infusions, but also helped overall with his rheumatoid arthritis as a whole. As he was dying he continued to use marijuana to help with nausea and pain. That's my peer reviewed study.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

UtahLama
Level 10

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Utah, USA
Posts: 6706

BeefEater wrote:
My father recently passed away from pancreatic cancer. Cancer does not run in our family at all so he likely developed his cancer from Remicade infusions he was taking to treat his rheumatoid arthritis. After he would take an infusion of Remicade he was sick for at least 2 days afterwards. He found that using a vaporizer for marijuana not only helped ease his nausea from the Remicade infusions, but also helped overall with his rheumatoid arthritis as a whole. As he was dying he continued to use marijuana to help with nausea and pain. That's my peer reviewed study.



I'm very sorry for your loss.

Glad that something gave him a bit of relief.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

optheta
Level 1

Join date: Feb 2009
Location:
Posts: 3592

BeefEater wrote:
My father recently passed away from pancreatic cancer. Cancer does not run in our family at all so he likely developed his cancer from Remicade infusions he was taking to treat his rheumatoid arthritis. After he would take an infusion of Remicade he was sick for at least 2 days afterwards. He found that using a vaporizer for marijuana not only helped ease his nausea from the Remicade infusions, but also helped overall with his rheumatoid arthritis as a whole. As he was dying he continued to use marijuana to help with nausea and pain. That's my peer reviewed study.


Did you guys look into alternatives(Legal drugs)? Cause according to ZEB there out there in droves.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Location: Austria
Posts: 24642

optheta wrote:
BeefEater wrote:
My father recently passed away from pancreatic cancer. Cancer does not run in our family at all so he likely developed his cancer from Remicade infusions he was taking to treat his rheumatoid arthritis. After he would take an infusion of Remicade he was sick for at least 2 days afterwards. He found that using a vaporizer for marijuana not only helped ease his nausea from the Remicade infusions, but also helped overall with his rheumatoid arthritis as a whole. As he was dying he continued to use marijuana to help with nausea and pain. That's my peer reviewed study.


Did you guys look into alternatives(Legal drugs)? Cause according to ZEB there out there in droves.


Dirt cheap too!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

dk44
Level 1

Join date: Apr 2007
Location: Arkansas, USA
Posts: 2332

BeefEater wrote:
My father recently passed away from pancreatic cancer. Cancer does not run in our family at all so he likely developed his cancer from Remicade infusions he was taking to treat his rheumatoid arthritis. After he would take an infusion of Remicade he was sick for at least 2 days afterwards. He found that using a vaporizer for marijuana not only helped ease his nausea from the Remicade infusions, but also helped overall with his rheumatoid arthritis as a whole. As he was dying he continued to use marijuana to help with nausea and pain. That's my peer reviewed study.


Your dad should have been locked in a cage, after a DEA team armed with AK's kicked in his door and shot his dog. But I'm all for small govt.

Edit: While it's fun to call Big Gov Zeb on his B.S. BeefEater I hope my comment isn't taken the wrong way. Sorry for your loss, glad your dad could get some comfort.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

BeefEater
Level 2

Join date: Dec 2004
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 927

optheta wrote:
BeefEater wrote:
My father recently passed away from pancreatic cancer. Cancer does not run in our family at all so he likely developed his cancer from Remicade infusions he was taking to treat his rheumatoid arthritis. After he would take an infusion of Remicade he was sick for at least 2 days afterwards. He found that using a vaporizer for marijuana not only helped ease his nausea from the Remicade infusions, but also helped overall with his rheumatoid arthritis as a whole. As he was dying he continued to use marijuana to help with nausea and pain. That's my peer reviewed study.


Did you guys look into alternatives(Legal drugs)? Cause according to ZEB there out there in droves.


Marijuana itself would not have been enough to completely dull the pain so he was on a number of painkillers, but they all made him nauseous and destroyed his already minute appetite. Marijuana at least helped with his nausea and provided him some small appetite.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report