Legal Pot or Jim Crow

[Faith No More]

I said it does not matter which one was better. There is no 'better.' There is only what the goverment is trying to accomplish with the people it controls. Pot is a tool a goverment uses when it is trying to take away the rights of people, and social oppression is the result of making a potion of the population docile enough to walk in, and take away their rights.
Who cares about guns when we have pot? Who cares about China taking our gold reserves for paying for our obama care when we have Pot? Who cares about freedom of religion when we have pot?

You are looking at a before and after, but are to mushed mind to see it for what it really is. but that's ok keep sparking up everyday, I'm sure you can live under some social program, if you are willing to give up your rights, but seriously who cares you've got pot.

You're too stupid for words.

[Minimalist]

A soceity who bans pot looks to try and keep its citizens with sharp and acute minds.

Drippy, I refuse to believe that even you are that stupid.

[freedomfromforum]

[Lion IRC]

I asked the group, fundies in particular, a couple of hypothetical questions. The first was same-sex marriage or slavery – which would be preferable? Then I asked about a preference between legalized marijuana and racial segregation. There were no fundies who had the nuts to answer it.

So you tried to troll them by providing a ridiculous false dichotomy and they didn't answer... Ya don't say...

I actually did answer the previous question. And my response to this one is the same.
Neither.

godlesspanther accuses us of not having the balls to answer a question, but the real accusation should be levelled at people who dont have the BRAINS to answer a simple question - can we prevent both of the moral evils?

You can see the foolishness of these type of counter-apologist tropes by reductio ad absurdum.

Which is worse?
Killing an atheist or killing an agnostic?

Which is worse?
Causing a road fatality while under the influence of marijuana or while under the influence of cocaine?

Which is worse?
Making jokes about rape or making jokes about the physically disabled?

Which is worse?
A slave owner who lets women slaves have abortions or a slave owner who thinks abortion is immoral?

Which would you rather do?
Prevent one moral evil in society or prevent two moral evils in society?

[Drich]

A soceity who bans pot looks to try and keep its citizens with sharp and acute minds.

Drippy, I refuse to believe that even you are that stupid.

You know if you would actually avail yourself to the reference material i made available you would have noted that the country at the time All mind altering substances were bann siteing mental acuity, and the ablity to work as one of the a primary reason for the temperance movement.

[Godlesspanther]

So you tried to troll them by providing a ridiculous false dichotomy and they didn't answer... Ya don't say...

I actually did answer the previous question. And my response to this one is the same.
Neither.

godlesspanther accuses us of not having the balls to answer a question, but the real accusation should be levelled at people who dont have the BRAINS to answer a simple question - can we prevent both of the moral evils?

You can see the foolishness of these type of counter-apologist tropes by reductio ad absurdum.

Which is worse?
Killing an atheist or killing an agnostic?

Which is worse?
Causing a road fatality while under the influence of marijuana or while under the influence of cocaine?

Which is worse?
Making jokes about rape or making jokes about the physically disabled?

Which is worse?
A slave owner who lets women slaves have abortions or a slave owner who thinks abortion is immoral?

Which would you rather do?
Prevent one moral evil in society or prevent two moral evils in society?

Again -- you are just avoiding the issue. You are not being clear but you are suggesting that legal pot is exactly equal to Jim Crow laws. Isd that what you are trying to say?

If so then you are a sick fuck.

[Lion IRC]

A soceity who bans pot looks to try and keep its citizens with sharp and acute minds.

Drippy, I refuse to believe that even you are that stupid.

Christopher Hitchens brother making the same case as Drich.

Peter Hitchens on the religion of drugs;
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/prog...gs/5040710

[Rev. Rye]

If you truly think that whites needed the law behind them to harass Blacks or mexicans in 1937, your... at best an idealist. Fore you see they had this little thing called the KKK back then, and from what i have come to understand it was quite popular, and what's more this 'social club' operated apart from the law. Meaning it did not matter what the law said, they did what they thought to be 'moral.'

So, basically, the fact that the Klan existed outside of the government means that there were no legal means for the government to harrass minorities? Do I really have to explain what's wrong with this picture?

In truth the country was undergoing a purity reform this was not limited to just pot, the temperance movement was big in the fist 1/3 of the 20th century. Pot was orginally made illegal as earily as 1917 in some states as well as alcohol.

I notice one little thing you neglected to mention about prohibition, namely that the consequences of making it illegal were actually worse than letting it around unchecked.

Alcohol was bann in '27 nation wide,

1920. Get it right.

and pot wasn't acutally bann in 1937. It was made subject to a goverment tax/stamp like cigeretts. It's just the Goverment would not issue those stamps/tax certificates, which subsequently made possession and distrubution of pot illegal.

Yeah, that's basically what the Anslinger act was. Just how that conflicts with my statement that marijuana was banned in 1937, I don't know. I guess that, in theory, it was legal, except for the stamps that the government wasn't allowed to make. But, in practice, it was made illegal.

[Ryantology]

It depends on the goals of soceity. As we are finding out in my thread on morality, right and wrong are trivial ideals. A soceity who bans pot looks to try and keep its citizens with sharp and acute minds. (Look at America's Industrial Age when the substance was first bann, look at China now) verses a soceity who wishes to subdue the masses usually as away to implement massive change. Pot makes people passive, and easier to control. Look how drugs are not only allowed but forced onto the people in warlord controlled parts of Africa. Not to say we are going to be like Somalia, but at the same time where would the US be if the founding Father's were baked out of their minds 80% of the waking life?

"THE EFFECTS OF REEFER", by someone who has very obviously never used it and knows virtually nothing about it. Ask your local internet forum for details.

[Drich]

It depends on the goals of soceity. As we are finding out in my thread on morality, right and wrong are trivial ideals. A soceity who bans pot looks to try and keep its citizens with sharp and acute minds. (Look at America's Industrial Age when the substance was first bann, look at China now) verses a soceity who wishes to subdue the masses usually as away to implement massive change. Pot makes people passive, and easier to control. Look how drugs are not only allowed but forced onto the people in warlord controlled parts of Africa. Not to say we are going to be like Somalia, but at the same time where would the US be if the founding Father's were baked out of their minds 80% of the waking life?

"THE EFFECTS OF REEFER", by someone who has very obviously never used it and knows virtually nothing about it. Ask your local internet forum for details.

What is the statute of limitations on the sale and distrbution transportation of pot over state lines?