apparently some people care what others do in their own bed. they think it's fearful to marriage while it's ok for hetrosexual marriages to last no more than 2 years :roll: :roll:.
speedy, how dare you lump the homeless into your attacks on Obama. least Obama actually visited the areas that were hit the hardest unlike bush who just did a fly over New Orleans. hell Obama even wanted to spend a 2nd day visiting NY. those homeless people actually waited on long lines to vote or voted by texting or fax while most other americans dont give a shit bout voting. they voted knowing full well a another storm is bout to fuck them up again. some even voted just by writing their name down. if gas wasn't so scarce i'd be out there helping people inneed and no the gas lines aren't getting better, the media just wan'ts you to believe that.
What the fuck are you talking about Metsy? My attacks on Obama?
I am only pointing out that there are more important issues, at least in my mind, than gay marriage and dope smoking. With cleaning up New York on the top of that list.
Come on Metsy, You are better than that.
And Good Morning.
sorry just a bit uppity this morning. speedy those issues maybe more important to you but for gays those issues aren't important to them. don't you wanna see people be able to get married and be happy and not suffer just because of some laws that were founded cause of the bible? I won't even get into the pot thing cause i think it's just a flat out a fucking joke.
Post edited by Gary Carter on
Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
I think this proves that the social issues were underestimated in this election. they were more important than first thought. Very pleased with those gay marriage and pot results BTW. Who would have thought there 'liberal' issues would have got up.
Didn't Oregon voted down gay Marriage? Unless the results changed from what I saw previously, they did. I thought that strange.
Why do you think Pot was on the ballot in Colorado? Undecided state...get all the stoners there to vote for Obama. Well run campaign.
In the 90's (in Oregon) there was a measure that was framed up in the negative and worded more anti-gay marriage and that didn't pass. 8 years ago the measure passed that defined marriage between a man and a woman (embarrassing). There was almost a measure this time to put gay marriage on the ballot, but they thought it was too close to go to the expense and effort, so it will be on in 2 or 4 years from now. It shouldn't be a problem passing then.
I'm kind of surprised the marijuana thing didn't pass. Medical pot has been legal for quite a while, and around 12 years ago pot use was lowered down to a violation where if you have less than 50 grams (or around that), it was basically a $100 fine and it's really only enforced as an add-on offense if you're doing other shenanigans.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,089
I think the marijuana issue is very important to anyone affected by it but if we were to step outside the 10 Club door for a minute and peek in on some others we'd probably see much less focus on it. On the bigger scale, on a national scale, I don't imagine there's that much focus on this one. But then I'm from California where it's not such a big deal. It used to be. Back in 1970 a couple of people in the dorm I lived were busted for having a few pot seeds. They went to jail for that. THAT was a big issue then. Today it's not such a big deal. Deal. Got pot? Yeah, sure-- so?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
Good deal. It is absolutely crazy to me that Gay Marriage and Pot were the 2 big topics nationally. Really? Anyone check the economy lately?
Economy
Education
Debt
Housing
30,000 or so homeless in New York and Jersey
And what are people celebrating?
Gay Marriage and Dope smoking.
Its a wonderful world we live in....
What would you guys have liked a side ballot to look like?
Should we has big govmint? yes or no
Should we has better skoolz? yes or no
Should we help people in NY and NJ? yes or no
Not sure how you would resolve those issues with a vote, but hey...I guess if you have a big enough hard on for potheads and gays that, in the midst of all the problems in your country, THIS is the one you choose to come to the PJ message board to bitch about.....then you would be too biased to see how these initiatives help the first item on your list (economy), which should in turn....(wait for it) trickle down some new and saved tax dollars to your other causes.
I know you'll just say youre not against either initiative, that you just don't give a shit about either issue....but then why are you calling people out for celebrating something they see as a positive? Is it better to be bitching about something you don't care about? (or maybe despise but don't want to say so publicly?)
Good deal. It is absolutely crazy to me that Gay Marriage and Pot were the 2 big topics nationally. Really? Anyone check the economy lately?
Economy
Education
Debt
Housing
30,000 or so homeless in New York and Jersey
And what are people celebrating?
Gay Marriage and Dope smoking.
Its a wonderful world we live in....
What would you guys have liked a side ballot to look like?
Should we has big govmint? yes or no
Should we has better skoolz? yes or no
Should we help people in NY and NJ? yes or no
Not sure how you would resolve those issues with a vote, but hey...I guess if you have a big enough hard on for potheads and gays that, in the midst of all the problems in your country, THIS is the one you choose to come to the PJ message board to bitch about.....then you would be too biased to see how these initiatives help the first item on your list (economy), which should in turn....(wait for it) trickle down some new and saved tax dollars to your other causes.
I know you'll just say youre not against either initiative, that you just don't give a shit about either issue....but then why are you calling people out for celebrating something they see as a positive? Is it better to be bitching about something you don't care about? (or maybe despise but don't want to say so publicly?)
I'm for Gay Marriage and think it's ridiculous that it be put up to vote.
As for Pot, I really don't care. But it does show the ridiculousness of what people care about. Plenty of other state issues I'm sure...water resources, state budgets, etc, etc etc. I guess one could argue that making Pot legal was a reduction in the cost of law enforcement or jail space...so I guess it has that going for it.
I can;t wait till 2016 when we get to vote state by state on prostitution!!!
I heard that a lot of the medical distributors were not happy with the proposition because in will ignite the Fed's attention to the state.
distributors and growers will have to submit their fingerprints to the FBI, and be licensed by the liquor control board.
The joy of life comes from our encounters with new experiences, and hence there is no greater joy than to have an endlessly changing horizon, for each day to have a new and different sun.
- Christopher McCandless
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,089
Imagine the shit storm of controversy if states were voting on legalization of alcohol and several of the states banned it. I'm not sure which emoticon to use here.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
I think this proves that the social issues were underestimated in this election. they were more important than first thought. Very pleased with those gay marriage and pot results BTW. Who would have thought there 'liberal' issues would have got up.
Didn't Oregon voted down gay Marriage? Unless the results changed from what I saw previously, they did. I thought that strange.
Why do you think Pot was on the ballot in Colorado? Undecided state...get all the stoners there to vote for Obama. Well run campaign.
In the 90's (in Oregon) there was a measure that was framed up in the negative and worded more anti-gay marriage and that didn't pass. 8 years ago the measure passed that defined marriage between a man and a woman (embarrassing). There was almost a measure this time to put gay marriage on the ballot, but they thought it was too close to go to the expense and effort, so it will be on in 2 or 4 years from now. It shouldn't be a problem passing then.
I'm kind of surprised the marijuana thing didn't pass. Medical pot has been legal for quite a while, and around 12 years ago pot use was lowered down to a violation where if you have less than 50 grams (or around that), it was basically a $100 fine and it's really only enforced as an add-on offense if you're doing other shenanigans.
I think the 'medical' pot growers were against it because they are profiting from thier crops.
now that obama has secured reelection, will he now end the 'drug war' and use that money for treatment and help balance the budget?
yes, i know this to be a pipe dream
Norm:
Think he backed off of his pro legalization stance due to election. Now that he's back in, think he'll go back to not using feds to enforce fed law. As more Americans see Colorado doesn't go into the shitter due to the evil weed, eventually more states will join and fed law will die as well.
Do think that social consevatives will fight back and may sway other way but momenum is in human rights court.
We have pushed our liberties farther than ever and moral laws will eventually die.
That actually doesn't sound good. But I guess Moral law just means religious law? I've gotta hit a dictionary.
While it wasn't worded the best, I think the point of it isn't elimination of religiously based law, but more along the lines of individual choice. Laws based on morality are different from laws based on individual rights. Example: Murder. If laws weren't based on morality, it would still be against the law because it violates the rights of another. But laws based in morality alone give us marriage legislation, sodomy laws...that kind of stuff.
But who knows...morality isn't a terrible thing to have as a society in general, but laws based on it solely aren't necessarily good laws.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Its definitely a positive step and I hope both Canada and the USA governments pull their collective heads out of their asses and legalize pot nation-wide. It only makes sense. Make it as legal and regulated as alcohol (which, IMHO is more dangerous than pot for society) and to consumers; use it responsibly. Don't smoke and drive, don't smoke in front of kids or in public places (some may be offended = respect others) don't use before or at work etc, etc. The crime associated will disappear if these simple rules/guidelines are adhered by all users. Local and federal governments can tax the shit out of it like they do with tobacco and alcohol which will help the economy as well. I'm happy to hear that leaders are finally starting to smarten up about this. I think Canada would have legalized or at least decriminalize this relatively harmless substance but the US has a lot of influence on our government so we are just waiting for them to take the first step.
Those are just some of my personal thoughts. Sorry for the rant.
It'll never happen in Canada...and the only way i'd support it is if it is consumed on one's own premises.
Too many people driving UI still. Now people want too add pot smoking!!
No problem from my point of view if consumed in one's own residence...if caught outside the residence make it a very stiff fine.
The stoned driving argument is a strawman. I've posted about this many times... viewtopic.php?f=13&t=183596&p=4491008&hilit=driving+stoned#p4491008
I've never really heard a good counter to that position, despite having raised it several times on this board. As I say in the link, I don't condone stoned driving - ideally, everyone should be as alert as possible when lives are at stake.....but at the same time, I don't think it holds water as a reason for continued prohibition.
besides....how many 'behind closed doors' laws are there? Increasing fines for public use while doing away from them? That double standard sounds like a legal nightmare to me. Deterrence-based laws just plain do NOT work when it comes to drugs. We've been proving it for over half a century now.
As for it never happening in Canada....I believe twice now we've had legislation passed to decriminalize personal use....and both times the government changed and the Cons crushed it before it came into law....due at least partially, as bennyorr said, to American pressure.
Its definitely a positive step and I hope both Canada and the USA governments pull their collective heads out of their asses and legalize pot nation-wide. It only makes sense. Make it as legal and regulated as alcohol (which, IMHO is more dangerous than pot for society) and to consumers; use it responsibly. Don't smoke and drive, don't smoke in front of kids or in public places (some may be offended = respect others) don't use before or at work etc, etc. The crime associated will disappear if these simple rules/guidelines are adhered by all users. Local and federal governments can tax the shit out of it like they do with tobacco and alcohol which will help the economy as well. I'm happy to hear that leaders are finally starting to smarten up about this. I think Canada would have legalized or at least decriminalize this relatively harmless substance but the US has a lot of influence on our government so we are just waiting for them to take the first step.
Those are just some of my personal thoughts. Sorry for the rant.
It'll never happen in Canada...and the only way i'd support it is if it is consumed on one's own premises.
Too many people driving UI still. Now people want too add pot smoking!!
No problem from my point of view if consumed in one's own residence...if caught outside the residence make it a very stiff fine.
The stoned driving argument is a strawman. I've posted about this many times... http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.ph ... d#p4491008
I've never really heard a good counter to that position, despite having raised it several times on this board. As I say in the link, I don't condone stoned driving - ideally, everyone should be as alert as possible when lives are at stake.....but at the same time, I don't think it holds water as a reason for continued prohibition.
besides....how many 'behind closed doors' laws are there? Increasing fines for public use while doing away from them? That double standard sounds like a legal nightmare to me. Deterrence-based laws just plain do NOT work when it comes to drugs. We've been proving it for over half a century now.
As for it never happening in Canada....I believe twice now we've had legislation passed to decriminalize personal use....and both times the government changed and the Cons crushed it before it came into law....due at least partially, as bennyorr said, to American pressure.
Decriminalizing isn't legalizing...its just removing the possibility of getting a criminal record.
No need to blame the conservatives...the liberals had 3 straight majorities to get it done and never did anything.
I don't really care either way ... but eventually the issue of people driving stoned will come up ... I just hope its dealt with before some government follows through ... even though I doubt it'll ever get that far.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Decriminalizing isn't legalizing...its just removing the possibility of getting a criminal record.
No need to blame the conservatives...the liberals had 3 straight majorities to get it done and never did anything.
I don't really care either way ... but eventually the issue of people driving stoned will come up ... I just hope its dealt with before some government follows through ... even though I doubt it'll ever get that far.
true about the liberals....if it was something they really wanted done, they could have done it in that time period. But it was the cons who crushed it once they finally got their shit together. Wouldn't suprise me if that was by design, but I don't recall exactly how it all went down, and googling this stuff at work is a bit sketchy...
As for the driving issue...Im aware of the difference between decrim and legalization....not sure how that applies to this discussion tho. Under either scenario, and more to my point - under the status quo, stoned driving will occur. My point is that there is nothing for them to 'deal with' before some government follows thru. It's basically a non-issue.
unless there is a big increase in the number of people smoking, which studies and precedents say there won't be, there won't be an increase in the number of people driving stoned. AND....driving stoned isn't as dangerous as some people think it is. Reaction times are not severely affected, and impairment levels are low.
Thus.....a strawman, a fear-mongering argument used by prohibitionists, and usually accepted by the public without much critical thought.
Decriminalizing isn't legalizing...its just removing the possibility of getting a criminal record.
No need to blame the conservatives...the liberals had 3 straight majorities to get it done and never did anything.
I don't really care either way ... but eventually the issue of people driving stoned will come up ... I just hope its dealt with before some government follows through ... even though I doubt it'll ever get that far.
true about the liberals....if it was something they really wanted done, they could have done it in that time period. But it was the cons who crushed it once they finally got their shit together. Wouldn't suprise me if that was by design, but I don't recall exactly how it all went down, and googling this stuff at work is a bit sketchy...
As for the driving issue...Im aware of the difference between decrim and legalization....not sure how that applies to this discussion tho. Under either scenario, and more to my point - under the status quo, stoned driving will occur. My point is that there is nothing for them to 'deal with' before some government follows thru. It's basically a non-issue.
unless there is a big increase in the number of people smoking, which studies and precedents say there won't be, there won't be an increase in the number of people driving stoned. AND....driving stoned isn't as dangerous as some people think it is. Reaction times are not severely affected, and impairment levels are low.
Thus.....a strawman, a fear-mongering argument used by prohibitionists, and usually accepted by the public without much critical thought.
like i said don't much matter to me either ... the liberals could have done that by design ... its common knowledge that the conservatives would never support these types of bills in Canada ... be interesting to see if Trudeau would if he wins liberal leadership and eventually a general election ... but where along way away from that happening.
I only bring up the decriminalizing because if you'll only be fined then the chances are you'll be more reckless and open ... meaning the chances of getting fined increases ... will this show up at customs when entering a foreign country ... maybe not all ... but some maybe ... whereas if it was just legal you'd never have a record of partaking in said substance ...
I don't know enough about the levels of impairment to debate the issues ... but here in Ontario under the graduated drivers license you can not have so much as a drop alcohol in your system ... so their are still some issues for the government to look at.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
My husband and I have already said that when states legalize marriage equality, we'll go there and renew our vows.
So we're going to have a busy year.
But Seattle in the Spring. Then Maryland in the summer.
Then I guess Maine... later that summer?
Stop by Sebago Lake the big one just outside Portland it's too beautiful there, MD it has to be the Shenandoah Mountains are also quite nice especially in the fall very nice too I lived in both places.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I read this while smoking a bowl.
I really disagree with the stipulation that one cannot grow pot and smoke it on their won property.
not that i'm defending it. tho i'm pretty sure the reasoning for having no 'grow your own' is because it would give better access to minors. also much like having a moonshine still...there's no way to assure quality control or tax revenues...consider % of alcohol = % of thc content in the same regard
Comments
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
In the 90's (in Oregon) there was a measure that was framed up in the negative and worded more anti-gay marriage and that didn't pass. 8 years ago the measure passed that defined marriage between a man and a woman (embarrassing). There was almost a measure this time to put gay marriage on the ballot, but they thought it was too close to go to the expense and effort, so it will be on in 2 or 4 years from now. It shouldn't be a problem passing then.
I'm kind of surprised the marijuana thing didn't pass. Medical pot has been legal for quite a while, and around 12 years ago pot use was lowered down to a violation where if you have less than 50 grams (or around that), it was basically a $100 fine and it's really only enforced as an add-on offense if you're doing other shenanigans.
Should we has big govmint? yes or no
Should we has better skoolz? yes or no
Should we help people in NY and NJ? yes or no
Not sure how you would resolve those issues with a vote, but hey...I guess if you have a big enough hard on for potheads and gays that, in the midst of all the problems in your country, THIS is the one you choose to come to the PJ message board to bitch about.....then you would be too biased to see how these initiatives help the first item on your list (economy), which should in turn....(wait for it) trickle down some new and saved tax dollars to your other causes.
I know you'll just say youre not against either initiative, that you just don't give a shit about either issue....but then why are you calling people out for celebrating something they see as a positive? Is it better to be bitching about something you don't care about? (or maybe despise but don't want to say so publicly?)
I'm for Gay Marriage and think it's ridiculous that it be put up to vote.
As for Pot, I really don't care. But it does show the ridiculousness of what people care about. Plenty of other state issues I'm sure...water resources, state budgets, etc, etc etc. I guess one could argue that making Pot legal was a reduction in the cost of law enforcement or jail space...so I guess it has that going for it.
I can;t wait till 2016 when we get to vote state by state on prostitution!!!
distributors and growers will have to submit their fingerprints to the FBI, and be licensed by the liquor control board.
- Christopher McCandless
Nothing more important than civil liberties.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
Time for me to start that vending machine business I've been thinking about.
That's what these morons (with all due respect, of course, because that makes the name calling ok) fail to realize... and why they lost.
Great idea.
Wonder if there are any stocks that are now a bit more atttractive.
yes, i know this to be a pipe dream
Think he backed off of his pro legalization stance due to election. Now that he's back in, think he'll go back to not using feds to enforce fed law. As more Americans see Colorado doesn't go into the shitter due to the evil weed, eventually more states will join and fed law will die as well.
Do think that social consevatives will fight back and may sway other way but momenum is in human rights court.
We have pushed our liberties farther than ever and moral laws will eventually die.
That actually doesn't sound good. But I guess Moral law just means religious law? I've gotta hit a dictionary.
While it wasn't worded the best, I think the point of it isn't elimination of religiously based law, but more along the lines of individual choice. Laws based on morality are different from laws based on individual rights. Example: Murder. If laws weren't based on morality, it would still be against the law because it violates the rights of another. But laws based in morality alone give us marriage legislation, sodomy laws...that kind of stuff.
But who knows...morality isn't a terrible thing to have as a society in general, but laws based on it solely aren't necessarily good laws.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=183596&p=4491008&hilit=driving+stoned#p4491008
I've never really heard a good counter to that position, despite having raised it several times on this board. As I say in the link, I don't condone stoned driving - ideally, everyone should be as alert as possible when lives are at stake.....but at the same time, I don't think it holds water as a reason for continued prohibition.
besides....how many 'behind closed doors' laws are there? Increasing fines for public use while doing away from them? That double standard sounds like a legal nightmare to me. Deterrence-based laws just plain do NOT work when it comes to drugs. We've been proving it for over half a century now.
As for it never happening in Canada....I believe twice now we've had legislation passed to decriminalize personal use....and both times the government changed and the Cons crushed it before it came into law....due at least partially, as bennyorr said, to American pressure.
Decriminalizing isn't legalizing...its just removing the possibility of getting a criminal record.
No need to blame the conservatives...the liberals had 3 straight majorities to get it done and never did anything.
I don't really care either way ... but eventually the issue of people driving stoned will come up ... I just hope its dealt with before some government follows through ... even though I doubt it'll ever get that far.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
As for the driving issue...Im aware of the difference between decrim and legalization....not sure how that applies to this discussion tho. Under either scenario, and more to my point - under the status quo, stoned driving will occur. My point is that there is nothing for them to 'deal with' before some government follows thru. It's basically a non-issue.
unless there is a big increase in the number of people smoking, which studies and precedents say there won't be, there won't be an increase in the number of people driving stoned. AND....driving stoned isn't as dangerous as some people think it is. Reaction times are not severely affected, and impairment levels are low.
Thus.....a strawman, a fear-mongering argument used by prohibitionists, and usually accepted by the public without much critical thought.
like i said don't much matter to me either ... the liberals could have done that by design ... its common knowledge that the conservatives would never support these types of bills in Canada ... be interesting to see if Trudeau would if he wins liberal leadership and eventually a general election ... but where along way away from that happening.
I only bring up the decriminalizing because if you'll only be fined then the chances are you'll be more reckless and open ... meaning the chances of getting fined increases ... will this show up at customs when entering a foreign country ... maybe not all ... but some maybe ... whereas if it was just legal you'd never have a record of partaking in said substance ...
I don't know enough about the levels of impairment to debate the issues ... but here in Ontario under the graduated drivers license you can not have so much as a drop alcohol in your system ... so their are still some issues for the government to look at.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 ... de=1732355
thanks...that does a good job of showing the the big picture
found this that answers how Washington's new law will be implimented
http://thedefenseperspective.files.word ... 110712.pdf
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I read this while smoking a bowl.
I really disagree with the stipulation that one cannot grow pot and smoke it on their won property.
Stop by Sebago Lake the big one just outside Portland it's too beautiful there, MD it has to be the Shenandoah Mountains are also quite nice especially in the fall very nice too I lived in both places.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
not that i'm defending it. tho i'm pretty sure the reasoning for having no 'grow your own' is because it would give better access to minors. also much like having a moonshine still...there's no way to assure quality control or tax revenues...consider % of alcohol = % of thc content in the same regard
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~