General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
lawlzkekeke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Charles
The only reason I want marijuana illegal and alcohol legal is because the government says so. That's enough for me to act on. I can't be convinced otherwise.
It makes so much sense now.


Apparently the drunkness that alcohol induces is A-OK with you, but the high marijuana gives is OMG SO BAD GO TO JAIL! The funny thing being that Denver voted to stop enforcing marijuana laws because they realize that Alcohol is infinitely more dangerous to society.
__________________
abf1f166d804cd4795f910ec03abb1ae

Last edited by lawlzkekeke; 01-24-2006 at 05:45 PM..
Old 01-24-2006, 05:43 PM lawlzkekeke is offline  
Reply With Quote
#361  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawlzkekeke
It makes so much sense now.


Apparently the drunkness that alcohol induces is A-OK with you, but the high marijuana gives is OMG SO BAD GO TO JAIL! The funny thing being that Denver voted to stop enforcing marijuana laws because they realize that Alcohol is infinitely more dangerous to society.

Actually, I believe that being drunk is just as bad as getting high. The difference is that there's lots of people who use alcohol without getting drunk. Marijuana is only a means to get high.

Edit: good job assuming things, rtft, that sort of thing.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club

Last edited by Ray Charles; 01-24-2006 at 06:15 PM..
Old 01-24-2006, 06:02 PM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#362  

Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Morrison
Sure you have the right to try and legislate whatever you want but the courts can step in to protect the rights of the minority, it's one of the founding principles of the US. Ever read the constitution or read the bill of rights? It's pretty clear the founding fathers did not intend for legislation (or the majority controlling the legislators) to be able to infringe on individual rights, especially property rights.

I have read both. The Bill of Rights only protects certain rights. Everything else is fair game. All of the safeguards built into the Constitution are there to keep the majority in check. there's nothing in there to protect the action we're talking about. Laws regarding marijuana are fair game as far as the the Bill of Rights is concerned.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-24-2006, 06:15 PM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#363  

Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enygma
you don't know anything about democratic theory, do you?

edit: i think Mill said it best

Good for Mill. It's nice that he thinks that, but I obviously don't. That's actually one of the points we're arguing about.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-24-2006, 06:17 PM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#364  

Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rijaxo
You cant drink soda anymore, because its bad for you mkay.

If you get half of America to agree with you on that, I'll concede the victory because soda isn't that important to me. If it were, I would try to convince people that soda isn't as bad as they think it is.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-24-2006, 06:19 PM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#365  

Enygma
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Charles
Good for Mill. It's nice that he thinks that, but I obviously don't. That's actually one of the points we're arguing about.

yeah, but you have no foundation or rational justification for your ideas within the context of a democracy, and moreover, you misunderstand the fundamental nature of democracies and how they must operate in order to function justly.
__________________
It is too difficult to think nobly when one thinks only of earning a living. ~ Jean Jacques Rousseau

this sig for sale, PM for details.
Old 01-24-2006, 06:21 PM Enygma is offline  
Reply With Quote
#366  

Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enygma
yeah, but you have no foundation or rational justification for your ideas within the context of a democracy, and moreover, you misunderstand the fundamental nature of democracies and how they must operate in order to function justly.

Show me how I misunderstand the nature of a democracy.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-24-2006, 07:59 PM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#367  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
http://www.norml.org/samsjourney.html
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6684
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4429
http://norml.com/index.cfm?Group_ID=5049

Quote:
Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to the individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use.
President Jimmy Carter addressing congress.

some interesting differences between alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition as noted by the nixon appointed commission that was supposed to provide the scientific reasoning behind the renewed prohibition of marijuana after the tax act was struck down:
Quote:
The major differences between the temperance and anti-narcotics movements must be, emphasized. The temperance, movement was a matter of vigorous public debate; the anti-narcotics movement was not. Temperance legislation was the product of a highly organized nation-wide lobby; narcotics legislation was largely ad hoc. Temperance legislation was designed to eradicate known problems resulting from alcohol abuse; narcotic--, legislation was largely anticipatory. Temperance legislation rarely restricted private activity; narcotics legislation prohibited all drug-related behavior, including possession and use.
Interestingly, the hand picked nixon commission came to the conclusion that marijuana should not be criminalized. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/.../nc/ncmenu.htm
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street

Last edited by pyramid; 01-25-2006 at 04:17 AM..
Old 01-25-2006, 03:45 AM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#368  

Doombabies
I desire a punk rock My Little Pony GODDAMMIT!!!
 
Doombabies's Avatar
 
I have just signed legislation outlawing McDonalds on the basis that it will kill you. We begin bombing in 5 minutes.

You know I've talked to health nuts and natural body builders who consider soda, fast food, and krispy cremes a greater evil than pot.

I say we outlaw doughnuts, because their effects are detrimental to our society, as they contribute to debilitating diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and morbid obesity. This fattitude caused by the doughnut industry impacts our worker's productivity and affects our corporation's bottom line. Home baking of doughnuts may earn you up to 2 years in prison, and transporting doughnuts over the state line can result in a 20 year sentence. Consumption of doughnuts will earn you, at least probation, if not jail time and community service.
__________________
You have a look that makes detectives itch, a mouth full of thunder and feverous pitch. A cross between Satan and a Gucci witch, your desposition would make Hitler flinch. -DFD
Gen[M]ay [M]om

I owe Dyno and TheMorlock a batch of cookies
Old 01-25-2006, 07:23 AM Doombabies is offline  
Reply With Quote
#369  

Enygma
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Charles
Show me how I misunderstand the nature of a democracy.

i'd have to go back and quote the vast majority of your posts. you simply show no knowledge of the philosophy and theory that was behind the creation of this democracy, nor do you show any knowledge of democratic theory in general.
__________________
It is too difficult to think nobly when one thinks only of earning a living. ~ Jean Jacques Rousseau

this sig for sale, PM for details.
Old 01-25-2006, 01:04 PM Enygma is offline  
Reply With Quote
#370  

Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doombabies
I have just signed legislation outlawing McDonalds on the basis that it will kill you. We begin bombing in 5 minutes.

You know I've talked to health nuts and natural body builders who consider soda, fast food, and krispy cremes a greater evil than pot.

I say we outlaw doughnuts, because their effects are detrimental to our society, as they contribute to debilitating diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and morbid obesity. This fattitude caused by the doughnut industry impacts our worker's productivity and affects our corporation's bottom line. Home baking of doughnuts may earn you up to 2 years in prison, and transporting doughnuts over the state line can result in a 20 year sentence. Consumption of doughnuts will earn you, at least probation, if not jail time and community service.

Pot isn't illegal because it's dangerous, it's illegal because people want it that way. I actually said above that I don't think pot is dangerous.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-25-2006, 02:04 PM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#371  

Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enygma
i'd have to go back and quote the vast majority of your posts. you simply show no knowledge of the philosophy and theory that was behind the creation of this democracy, nor do you show any knowledge of democratic theory in general.

Good argument there.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-25-2006, 02:06 PM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#372  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Charles
Pot isn't illegal because it's dangerous, it's illegal because people want it that way. I actually said above that I don't think pot is dangerous.
Actually, it was made illegal on the grounds that it was dangerous. People wanted it made illegal because they were lied to and told it was extremely dangerous. They were told it made people go insane with superhuman strength akin to the horror stories more commonly told nowadays about PCP. People didn't just decide they needed to prohibit something for no good reason, they were given good reasons, it just turns out that those reasons were complete bunk and not enough people at the time knew enough to refute the bullshit. Do you even realize just how insane some of the stuff said about marijuana was?

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

Quote:
The final story from this period is my favorite story from this period, by far, and, again, there is simply nobody here who is really old enough to appreciate this story. You know, if you talk to your parents -- that's the generation we really need to talk to -- people who were adults during the late 30's and 40's. And you talk to them about marijuana in particular you would be amazed at the amazing reputation that marijuana has among the generation ahead of you as to what it does to its users.

In the late 30's and early 40's marihuana was routinely referred to as "the killer drug", "the assassin of youth". You all know "reefer madness", right? Where did these extraordinary stories that circulated in this country about what marijuana would do to its users come from?

The conventional wisdom is that Anslinger put them over on Americans in his effort to compete with Hoover for empire-building, etc. I have to say, in some fairness, that one of the things that our research did, in some sense, was to rehabilitate Commissioner Anslinger. Yes, there was some of that but, basically, it wasn't just that Anslinger was trying to dupe people.

The terrific reputation that marijuana got in the late 30s and early 40s stemmed from something Anslinger had said. Does everybody remember what Anslinger said about the drug? "Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

Well, this time the magic word -- come along lawyers out there, where's the magic word? -- Insanity. Marihuana use, said the Government, would produce insanity.

And, sure enough, in the late 30s and early 40s, in five really flamboyant murder trials, the defendant's sole defense was that he -- or, in the most famous of them, she -- was not guilty by reason of insanity for having used marijuana prior to the commission of the crime.

All right, it's time to take you guys back to class here. If you are going to put on an insanity defense, what do you need? You need two things, don't you? Number one, you need an Expert Witness.

Where, oh where, in this story, are we going to find an expert witness? Here it comes -- sure enough -- the guy from Temple University -- the guy with the dogs. I promise you, you are not going to believe this.

In the most famous of these trials, what happened was two women jumped on a Newark, New Jersey bus and shot and killed and robbed the bus driver. They put on the marijuana insanity defense. The defense called the pharmacologist, and of course, you know how to do this now, you put the expert on, you say "Doctor, did you do all of this experimentation and so on?" You qualify your expert. "Did you write all about it?" "Yes, and I did the dogs" and now he is an expert. Now you ask him what? You ask the doctor "What have you done with the drug?" And he said, and I quote, "I've experimented with the dogs, I have written something about it and" -- are you ready -- "I have used the drug myself."

What do you ask him next? "Doctor, when you used the drug, what happened?"

With all the press present at this flamboyant murder trial in Newark New Jersey, in 1938, the pharmacologist said, and I quote, in response to the question "When you used the drug, what happened?", his exact response was: "After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette, I was turned into a bat."

He wasn't done yet. He testified that he flew around the room for fifteen minutes and then found himself at the bottom of a two-hundred-foot high ink well

Well, friends, that sells a lot of papers. What do you think the Newark Star Ledger headlines the next day, October 12, 1938? "Killer Drug Turns Doctor to Bat!"

What else do we need to put on an insanity defense? We need the defendant's testimony -- himself or herself. OK, you put defendant on the stand, what do you ask? "What happened on the night of . ."

"Oh, I used marijuana."

"And then what happened?"

And, if the defendant wants to get off, what is he or she going to say? "It made me crazy."

You know what the women testified? In Newark they testified, and I quote, "After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette my incisor teeth grew six inches long and dripped with blood."

This was the craziest business you ever saw. Every one of these so-called marijuana insanity defenses were successful.

The one in New York was just outlandish. Two police officers were shot and killed in cold blood. The defendant puts on the marijuana insanity defense and, in that case, there was never even any testimony that the defendant had even used marijuana. The testimony in the New York case was that, from the time the bag of marijuana came into his room it gave off "homicidal vibrations", so he started killing dogs, cats, and ultimately two police officers.

Commissioner Anslinger, sitting in Washington, seeing these marijuana insanity defenses, one after another successful, he writes to the pharmacologist from Temple University and says, "If you don't stop testifying for the defense in these matters, we are going to revoke your status as the Official Expert of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics." He didn't want to lose his status, so he stopped testifying, nobody else would testify that marijuana had turned them into a bat, and so these insanity defenses were over but not before marijuana had gotten quite a reputation, indeed.
There is the "rational" basis for marijuana prohibition. Lies upon lies. Read the whole thing it really is an interesting story. The "debate" that happened in congres is rather amusing as well. Here is the bulk of it:

Quote:
In any event, there was Anslinger's testimony, there was the industrial testimony -- there was only one body of testimony left at these brief hearings and it was medical. There were two pieces of medical evidence introduced with regard to the marijuana prohibition.

The first came from a pharmacologist at Temple University who claimed that he had injected the active ingredient in marihuana into the brains of 300 dogs, and two of those dogs had died. When asked by the Congressmen, and I quote, "Doctor, did you choose dogs for the similarity of their reactions to that of humans?" The answer of the pharmacologist was, "I wouldn't know, I am not a dog psychologist."

Well, the active ingredient in marijuana was first synthesized in a laboratory in Holland after World War II. So what it was this pharmacologist injected into these dogs we will never know, but it almost certainly was not the active ingredient in marijuana.

The other piece of medical testimony came from a man named Dr. William C. Woodward. Dr. Woodward was both a lawyer and a doctor and he was Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. Dr. Woodward came to testify at the behest of the American Medical Association saying, and I quote, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug."

What's amazing is not whether that's true or not. What's amazing is what the Congressmen then said to him. Immediately upon his saying, and I quote again, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug.", one of the Congressmen said, "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"

That's an exact quote. The next Congressman said, "Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you."

Now, the interesting question for us is not about the medical evidence. The most fascinating question is: why was this legal counsel to the most prestigious group of doctors in the United States treated in such a high-handed way? And the answer makes a principle thesis of my work -- and that is -- you've seen it, you've been living it the last ten years. The history of drugs in this country perfectly mirrors the history of this country.

So look at the date -- 1937 -- what's going on in this country? Well, a lot of things, but the number one thing was that, in 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt was reelected in the largest landslide election in this country's history till then. He brought with him two Democrats for every Republican, all, or almost all of them pledged to that package of economic and social reform legislation we today call the New Deal.

And, did you know that the American Medical Association, from 1932, straight through 1937, had systematically opposed every single piece of New Deal legislation. So that, by 1937, this committee, heavily made up of New Deal Democrats is simply sick of hearing them: "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"

So, over the objection of the American Medical Association, the bill passed out of committee and on to the floor of Congress. Now, some of you may think that the debate on the floor of Congress was more extensive on the marijuana prohibition. It wasn't. It lasted one minute and thirty-two seconds by my count and, as such, I will give it to you verbatim.

The entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition was as follows -- and, by the way, if you had grown up in Washington, DC as I had you would appreciate this date. Are you ready? The bill was brought on to the floor of the House of Representatives -- there never was any Senate debate on it not one word -- 5:45 Friday afternoon, August 20. Now, in pre-air-conditioning Washington, who was on the floor of the House? Who was on the floor of the House? Not very many people.

Speaker Sam Rayburn called for the bill to be passed on "tellers". Does everyone know "tellers"? Did you know that for the vast bulk of legislation in this country, there is not a recorded vote. It is simply, more people walk past this point than walk past that point and it passes -- it's called "tellers". They were getting ready to pass this thing on tellers without discussion and without a recorded vote when one of the few Republicans left in Congress, a guy from upstate New York, stood up and asked two questions, which constituted the entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition.

"Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"

To which Speaker Rayburn replied, "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."

Undaunted, the guy from Upstate New York asked a second question, which was as important to the Republicans as it was unimportant to the Democrats. "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"

In one of the most remarkable things I have ever found in any research, a guy who was on the committee, and who later went on to become a Supreme Court Justice, stood up and -- do you remember? The AMA guy was named William C. Woodward -- a member of the committee who had supported the bill leaped to his feet and he said, "Their Doctor Wentworth came down here. They support this bill 100 percent." It wasn't true, but it was good enough for the Republicans. They sat down and the bill passed on tellers, without a recorded vote.

In the Senate there never was any debate or a recorded vote, and the bill went to President Roosevelt's desk and he signed it and we had the national marijuana prohibition.
here's another snippet:

Quote:
Now, the next step in our story is the period from 1938 to 1951. I have three stories to tell you about 1938 to 1951.

The first of them. Immediately after the passage of the national marijuana prohibition, Commissioner Anslinger decided to hold a conference of all the people who knew something about marijuana -- a big national conference. He invited forty-two people to this conference. As part our research for the book, we found the exact transcript of this conference. Ready?

The first morning of the conference of the forty-two people that Commissioner Anslinger invited to talk about marijuana, 39 of them got up and said some version of "Gee, Commissioner Anslinger, I don't know why you asked me to this conference, I don't know anything about marijuana."

That left three people. Dr. Woodward and his assistant -- you know what they thought.

That left one person -- the pharmacologist from Temple University -- the guy with the dogs.

And what do you think happened as a result of that conference? Commissioner Anslinger named the pharmacologist from Temple University the Official Expert of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics about marijuana, a position the guy held until 1962. Now, the irony of trying to find out what the drug did after it had been prohibited -- finding out that only one person agrees with you -- and naming him the Official Expert, speaks for itself.
And this just about sums up the entire debate perfectly:

Quote:
Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it. This judgment is based on prevalent, use patterns, on behavior exhibited by the vast majority of users and on our interpretations of existing medical and scientific data. This position also is consistent with the estimate by law enforcement personnel that the elimination of use is unattainable.
Remember, this is Nixon's own blue ribbon panel here.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street

Last edited by pyramid; 01-25-2006 at 09:09 PM..
Old 01-25-2006, 03:12 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#373  

Enygma
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Charles
Good argument there.

and yet, it's true...
__________________
It is too difficult to think nobly when one thinks only of earning a living. ~ Jean Jacques Rousseau

this sig for sale, PM for details.
Old 01-25-2006, 04:51 PM Enygma is offline  
Reply With Quote
#374  

Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
Actually, it was made illegal on the grounds that it was dangerous. People wanted it made illegal because they were lied to and told it was extremely dangerous. They were told it made people go insane with superhuman strength akin to the horror stories more commonly told nowadays about PCP. People didn't just decide they needed to prohibit something for no good reason, they were given good reasons, it just turns out that those reasons were complete bunk and not enough people at the time knew enough to refute the . Do you even realize just how insane some of the stuff said about marijuana was?

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm



There is the "rational" basis for marijuana prohibition. Lies upon lies. Read the whole thing it really is an interesting story. The "debate" that happened in congres is rather amusing as well. Here is the bulk of it:



here's another snippet:



And this just about sums up the entire debate perfectly:



Remember, this is Nixon's own blue ribbon panel here.

My point was that substances aren't illegal because they have the potential for harm. There's lots of things out there that can be very dangerous, but they are too useful (like gasoline) or are well controlled enough (perscription drugs) that we don't get rid of them. I wasn't actually referring to the debate on marijuana.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-26-2006, 08:48 AM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#375  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:41 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.