Answering the Libertarian argument for drug legalization

[Clampy]

Originally Posted by MissSmallAimsSmall

In post 141, Clampy had a link to a page that supposedly had "evidence" of "Negligible consequences of using marijuana when pregnant."

Earlier in this thread, the lack of scientific support for pot regulation was noted multiple times. I have posted 7 quotes directly from scientific papers... not too much when you think about the number of replies in this thread. A respectful discussion can include scientific sources, personal experience, and whatever other contributions others may have to the conversation.

Uhh. Duh. Are these seriously your arguments to put adults in cages ?

No one is advocating pot use while pregnant. Those scientific papers you site or from an addiction centers of course drugs are bad. They need biz.

Try again smalls

[Goooh]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and just assume that "Miss" is actually MG's wife that signed up today to join in converting us all to the moral high ground.

I know i shouldn't assume, but it seems really coincidental that someone be lurking on an outdoor site with an agenda to start posting so called scientific data in an attempt to shoot down everyone else's opinion on pot.... And the Handle (Miss) is a play on words from a post MG had.

I'm out, this thread is high.

[MissSmallAimsSmall]

Originally Posted by Goooh

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and just assume that "Miss" is actually MG's wife that signed up today to join in converting us all to the moral high ground.

I know i shouldn't assume, but it seems really coincidental that someone be lurking on an outdoor site with an agenda to start posting so called scientific data in an attempt to shoot down everyone else's opinion on pot.... And the Handle (Miss) is a play on words from a post MG had.

I'm out, this thread is high.

I am not Mathgeek's wife. Most southern gentlemen would say that "Miss" refers to a single woman.

It was AceArcher who referred to the phrase "aim small miss small" in post 62, not MG. The origin of my handle was from the movie "The Patriot".

mel gibson the patriot tomahawk fight scenes - YouTube

mel gibson the patriot tomahawk fight scenes - YouTube

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by MissSmallAimsSmall

I am not Mathgeek's wife. Most southern gentlemen would say that "Miss" refers to a single woman.

It was AceArcher who referred to the phrase "aim small miss small" in post 62, not MG. The origin of my handle was from the movie "The Patriot". mel gibson the patriot tomahawk fight scenes - YouTube

You are right, but in my defense I had been up for about 30 hours and was super stoned when I posted.

[Top Dawg]

Pot smokers be angry!!

[ckinchen]

Closed by original posters request.

[ckinchen]

I was finally able to read some of the content, in between naps of course, no offense MG.....

The thread is open again, easy on the personal attacks.

[Clampy]

Here is 3 rebuttals to my " highly educated & better witted " friend
Hawgsquatch

Humbolt growers don't want legal weed because they would be out of biz. All the problems you listed are directly prohibition related. If they didn't have to hide in the forest and run from law enforcement They wouldn't have to carry guns and make pollution. Every other legal business is highly regulated why wouldn't the cannabis industry.


http://www.examiner.com/article/top-...a-dispensaries

Shame on these parents for abusing there son. The kid literally beats himself into walls and cannabis is the only thing that works. It's ABUSE not to give the kid the medicine.


http://www.kptv.com/story/20660400/m...-manage-autism



Down from 300 seizures a week to just 1
Abuse ?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3734283

[Goooh]

Good, time for church.

Thought he was making fun until he started spitting scriptures, lmao

http://youtu.be/C-uftiQAODc

[MathGeek]

You guys may want to be more careful before posting material that might provide probable cause of drug use to enforcement agencies inclined to search homes and vehicles for contraband and to revoke business licenses for such things. Your IP addresses and real identities are likely easily discovered unless you are taking active steps (ie: tor, proxy servers) to preserve your privacy.

I haven't followed up every citation, but some of the material being discussed in support of dangers of cannabis has been published by the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and the National Academy of Sciences.

My wife definitely supports my efforts in this discussion, providing many insights and scientific views, but alas, the Harvard PhD has not rolled up her sleeves and personally joined the discussion. "SaltyCajun" is often too "Salty" for her, but she enjoys vicarious participation through me and meeting folks at Calcasieu Point.

I am surprised that the forum which has appreciated scientific pastes and input in threads regarding the 15 trout limit in Big Lake, the overharvesting of oysters in Big Lake, and red snapper and tripletail discussions suddenly seem to be balking at a little science when the subject is drug legalization.

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

You guys may want to be more careful before posting material that might provide probable cause of drug use to enforcement agencies inclined to search homes and vehicles for contraband and to revoke business licenses for such things. Your IP addresses and real identities are likely easily discovered unless you are taking active steps (ie: tor, proxy servers) to preserve your privacy.

I haven't followed up every citation, but some of the material being discussed in support of dangers of cannabis has been published by the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and the National Academy of Sciences.

My wife definitely supports my efforts in this discussion, providing many insights and scientific views, but alas, the Harvard PhD has not rolled up her sleeves and personally joined the discussion. "SaltyCajun" is often too "Salty" for her, but she enjoys vicarious participation through me and meeting folks at Calcasieu Point.

I am surprised that the forum which has appreciated scientific pastes and input in threads regarding the 15 trout limit in Big Lake, the overharvesting of oysters in Big Lake, and red snapper and tripletail discussions suddenly seem to be balking at a little science when the subject is drug legalization.

MG,

First off I don't smoke lot, and there are people on this site that will attest to that. I am a supporter of civil liberty, whether it benefits and opposing legislation that infringes on those rights, whether they benefit me or not. You can't claim to be for those same things, then pick and chose the things that benefit you. Liberty and Justice for ALL, not just devout Christians.

Secondly, you started bringing religion, morality, scripture, and theoretical statements into the discussion.

Lastly, lighten up a little bit. I was joking about being stoned.

[mcjaredsandwich]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

You guys may want to be more careful before posting material that might provide probable cause of drug use to enforcement agencies inclined to search homes and vehicles for contraband and to revoke business licenses for such things. Your IP addresses and real identities are likely easily discovered unless you are taking active steps (ie: tor, proxy servers) to preserve your privacy.

I haven't followed up every citation, but some of the material being discussed in support of dangers of cannabis has been published by the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and the National Academy of Sciences.

My wife definitely supports my efforts in this discussion, providing many insights and scientific views, but alas, the Harvard PhD has not rolled up her sleeves and personally joined the discussion. "SaltyCajun" is often too "Salty" for her, but she enjoys vicarious participation through me and meeting folks at Calcasieu Point.

I am surprised that the forum which has appreciated scientific pastes and input in threads regarding the 15 trout limit in Big Lake, the overharvesting of oysters in Big Lake, and red snapper and tripletail discussions suddenly seem to be balking at a little science when the subject is drug legalization.

Big government and the NSA already haveall this information, don't think for one minute they don't.

Libertarian-ism is about SMALL GOVERNMENT and GETTING OUT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES. Let people do what they want with their lives, not be dictated by laws that overreach the boundaries of personal freedom.

If anyone on this website really wanted small government and more personal freedoms (what I read many times during the last election AND things that are discussed regularly), you'd have voted libertarian.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

You guys may want to be more careful before posting material that might provide probable cause of drug use to enforcement agencies inclined to search homes and vehicles for contraband and to revoke business licenses for such things. Your IP addresses and real identities are likely easily discovered unless you are taking active steps (ie: tor, proxy servers) to preserve your privacy.

I haven't followed up every citation, but some of the material being discussed in support of dangers of cannabis has been published by the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and the National Academy of Sciences.

My wife definitely supports my efforts in this discussion, providing many insights and scientific views, but alas, the Harvard PhD has not rolled up her sleeves and personally joined the discussion. "SaltyCajun" is often too "Salty" for her, but she enjoys vicarious participation through me and meeting folks at Calcasieu Point.

I am surprised that the forum which has appreciated scientific pastes and input in threads regarding the 15 trout limit in Big Lake, the overharvesting of oysters in Big Lake, and red snapper and tripletail discussions suddenly seem to be balking at a little science when the subject is drug legalization.

Mathgeek your sense of being entitled to some warped double standard is outrageous.

I have given you more than sufficient links to both scientific studies as well as varying news source discussion on this matter (with a variety of sources spanning from such liberal pundits as Fox news, to the cato institute to published british & israeli papers on subject.)

Why are you surprised that this forum has gained a lack of appreciation for your scientific method. You went from providing sound discussion on the subject matters of triple tail, specks... etc... To your current posting which has been a catch all of biblical "proof" - mixed with links from HIGHLY biased sites. Here at the very tail end of the discussion, you have FINALLY offered a few link on a few studies that are marginally non biased. Yet you offered NO comment on the many articles, which were vetted and UNBIASED...

If your mind is not open to the possibility that your current position may need to be re-evaluated. Why should anyone else's in this discussion be open to change from you?

You have complained that others have been rude and made personal attacks on you. As best as i can tell it's actually you initiated making continued personal jibe's and attacks at others when it was not needed. In point of fact clampy even said something that could possibly have been construded as rude, and I kindly asked him not to take the discussion in that direction. He then did the right thing and publicly apologized to you. Rather than accept this you questioned his thinking, his motives, and whether he should even be "allowed" to have a discussion with the like's of you.

I posted a personal situation, to illustrate a point about the potential impact to me and my family that some medicinal use of the drugs contained in cannabis could have. I ASKED you in the MOST POSSIBLE professional way, to PLEASE not refer to my personal situation in any responses and reasoning that you might have.

Rather than respect my reasonable request, you stated something along the lines of "well if it were me and i were to love my mother (and I do) i would move her somewhere where i could access this lifesafing drug"

I found that statement INCREDIBLY rude and obviously it was intentionally meant to be rude on your part. You suggesting that i must not "love" my mother, you suggesting that in order for my mother to live a healthy life with all possible medical supports she should pack her bags.

That conduct is unacceptable, it's reminiscent of a child's temper tantrum when things are not going there way. One in which the child when things are going badly lashes out in every direction regardless.

It's rough equal would be, if i were to tell you, that it's nice that your wife wasted all her daddy's money to get her Harvard PHD, but since she never had to stand on her own to feet she wouldn't understand and / or even comprehend the discussion in front of her.

That statement would be unacceptable as well, seeing as I do not know you, your wife, her educational history, and / or her abilty to be self sufficient and comprehend a discussion. But If i made that statement it would roughly be equal to what you said about my mother. We would just need to add in the sadness of your wife is dying from a disease that can only effectively be treated / possibly reversed by the medicines contained in Cannabidoids.

FOR YOU TO OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND TALK ABOUT MY MOTHER WHEN YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE SITUATION IS UNACCEPTABLE. And really at the very least is deserving of an apology.

Based on your previous conduct in this thread, I don't expect that I will get one. Rather i think that you will think it's appropriate for you to continue with the Diahrrea coming out of your over=educated excuse for a brain. As you continue with that i suggest you reflect on exactly how effective your "browbeatings" have been.

There is an enourmous difference between educating / teaching, and insulting / lecturing. No one here is a "Student" of yours (well perhaps "W" has placed you on that pedestal). But until common courtesy, and full devotion to ALL the scientific studies return to how you choose to conduct youself, I doubt that you will find many more willing students.

Good day Sir, I am glad that you have shown me your "Character"

["W"]

LMAO

All I got out of this whole thread is



PotHeads MaD!!!

["W"]

Little FYI ; smoking is bad for you know matter what it is!!

[Clampy]

You're missing the point ?
Just because something is dangerous gives no one the right to put you in cage for just having it in your pocket.
Football is dangerous
Drinking too much water can kill you.

The fact is a majority of people have smoked weed in there lives and know from experience its nothing when compared to everything else out there. Most people would like to have at least the option for something a little safer.

[Goooh]

Btw - I am a Christian, raised in the church, homeschooled until 4th grade and spent the rest of my schooling in an Assembly of God. So don't jump to conclusions and start a charge to save my soul, I may just be wearing a nice outfit to the wedding than you my friend...

["W"]

I think if your caught with weed it should be 5 year prison sentence 2nd time 15 years and 3rd time life


This will cut the pot going to kids and schools real quick

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by "W"

I think if your caught with weed it should be 5 year prison sentence 2nd time 15 years and 3rd time life


This will cut the pot going to kids and schools real quick

Here we go....

[mriguy]

Originally Posted by "W"

I think if your caught with weed it should be 5 year prison sentence 2nd time 15 years and 3rd time life


This will cut the pot going to kids and schools real quick

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2