Legal Pot or Jim Crow

[Godlesspanther]

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.

This brings us back in history to the Jim Crow laws that were established in several states in the USA and the civil rights movement that challenged and overturned such draconian injustice. Those who opposed the civil rights movement were monolithically Christians. The movement itself was much more diverse – primarily Christian but also represented were Muslims, Jews, and even a smattering of atheists (most notably A. Phillip Randolph.) Bear in mind that, at the time, outspoken atheists were extremely rare – very few and far between.

So – Jim Crow laws are now considered to be an embarrassment – an ugly stain on American history -- primitive, uncivilized, inhumane, despicable, barbaric, unethical, immoral, and quite sickening all the way around. It’s no surprise that the first, foremost, and primary document used to justify such hateful and repugnant behavior was the fucking Bible.

So I ask about a moral hierarchy, which is preferable; racist hatred, violence, oppression, and thuggery or simply that some of us can smoke a doobie without breaking the law?

Anyone who can’t come up with a clear, immediate, and firm answer to that has no moral compass and is bereft of a sense of right and wrong.

Case closed.

[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?

That said if the people want slaves, let them have slaves. On the same hand if they want pot them them smoke pot. Who cares what you do or how you justify it. In the end know there is a standard in which we can not escape judgement. So no matter what you deny or justify it is to God we must given an account.

[freedomfromforum]

I'm smoking pot right now and I like it

[Rev. Rye]

. 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)

Actually, Marijuana was only banned nationwide in 1937, well into the Great Depression, and shortly after the beginning of the Roosevelt Recession.

And, really, the more I look at the circumstances behind making marijuana illegal, the more I think it has less to do with "keeping citizens with sharp and acute minds" and more with keeping down the "other." In fact, it was used as a quick and easy way to get Mexicans in jail (seriously, why do you think it's most commonly known as "marijuana" these days?) Hell, since it was also commonly used by black jazz musicians (fun fact: one of Louis "What a Wonderful World" Armstrong's first great recordings was "Muggles," written as an ode to the stuff), it gave the authorities two minorities for the price of one to harass.

[Godlesspanther]

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?

That said if the people want slaves, let them have slaves. On the same hand if they want pot them them smoke pot. Who cares what you do or how you justify it. In the end know there is a standard in which we can not escape judgement. So no matter what you deny or justify it is to God we must given an account.

You haven't really said anything here. My question was not about the pros and cons of marijuana nor anything about slavery. It is about a moral hierarchy -- which is a better society? Contemporary Washington and Colorado in which marijuana is legal, or pre-civil rights Alabama and Mississippi?

Morality and right and wrong are not trivial matters. Only those who have been brainwashed into an authoritarian cult think that.

I can't help but suspect that your reluctance to actually answer the question implies that you would rather reinstate racial segregation than progressive morality and human rights.

The Bible is absolutely worthless a a moral guideline. The Bible is and always has been simultaneously for, against, and neutral on every political issue.

The cult that you belong to is obviously a strict authoritarian and dogmatic one. Such a construct is incompatible with a society based on morality.

[Drich]

. 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)

Actually, Marijuana was only banned nationwide in 1937, well into the Great Depression, and shortly after the beginning of the Roosevelt Recession.

And, really, the more I look at the circumstances behind making marijuana illegal, the more I think it has less to do with "keeping citizens with sharp and acute minds" and more with keeping down the "other." In fact, it was used as a quick and easy way to get Mexicans in jail (seriously, why do you think it's most commonly known as "marijuana" these days?) Hell, since it was also commonly used by black jazz musicians (fun fact: one of Louis "What a Wonderful World" Armstrong's first great recordings was "Muggles," written as an ode to the stuff), it gave the authorities two minorities for the price of one to harass.

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 to use the stonner arguement that pot was made illegal because of blacks and mexicans is a mushed up mindless appeal to white a man's guilt. 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. Alcohol was bann in '27 nation wide, 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.

In order to rightly discern the intentions of that generation's 'morality' one has to look beyond the legalized pot propaganda stoners are trying to sell, and one must look at the entire state of the nation back then.

Again it had nothing to do with harassing blacks or mexicans, (because they did not need a reason back then) it had to do with keeping white minds clear and sharp, and ready to work. To tell the truth I don't see why it was not encouraged in non-white ethnic groups.

[Faith No More]

Any evidence for this, Drich?

Or can we just assume that, like everything else you say, you just pulled that out of your ass?

[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?

That said if the people want slaves, let them have slaves. On the same hand if they want pot them them smoke pot. Who cares what you do or how you justify it. In the end know there is a standard in which we can not escape judgement. So no matter what you deny or justify it is to God we must given an account.

You haven't really said anything here. My question was not about the pros and cons of marijuana nor anything about slavery. It is about a moral hierarchy -- which is a better society? Contemporary Washington and Colorado in which marijuana is legal, or pre-civil rights Alabama and Mississippi?

Morality and right and wrong are not trivial matters. Only those who have been brainwashed into an authoritarian cult think that.

I can't help but suspect that your reluctance to actually answer the question implies that you would rather reinstate racial segregation than progressive morality and human rights.

The Bible is absolutely worthless a a moral guideline. The Bible is and always has been simultaneously for, against, and neutral on every political issue.

The cult that you belong to is obviously a strict authoritarian and dogmatic one. Such a construct is incompatible with a society based on morality.

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.

[ablenova]

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...

[Drich]

Any evidence for this, Drich?

Or can we just assume that, like everything else you say, you just pulled that out of your ass?

You really believe that don't you? That I do not reasearch EVERYTHING I talk about? I think what it is, is that you d-bags only go so far as to hear what the goverment/Soceity tells you and you are so sheepish that you swallow everything you are fed. Then He Comes Drich who says something radically different, and you just assume what I have said is not founded in verfiable truth.

Take it to heart dear one, that everything I state in the way of fact is verified by no less than two or three sources, at some point in me discussing a given topic. I question everything. If one of you say X about a given topic, i look it up if I can not automatically verify it. Most of You on the otherhand don't. you just Baaa (the sound mush minded sheep make) at what is said till I provide the proof for you and hand feed you truth. Most of which is ignored because it forces you to think on your own, pushing you away from the pre digested conclusions that have been laid out for you.

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/mj_outlawed.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement