Fuck yeah amendment 64
|
Micahisaac wrote: I voted for Colorado constitutional amendment 64 BECAUSE I'm right wing. Does that blow your mind? It shouldn't.Im glad to see that. What with all the "get guvment out of our lives" from the right, their argument falls apart when it comes to stuff like this. government or no government. No a la carte |
|
Randy W. wrote: I wasn't referring to your comment. I used it for context quoting nick. How do you hate through the interwebs... Can't really hate anyone you haven't met, right?Funny because that is a tupac quote LOL |
|
tenpins wrote: Im glad to see that. What with all the "get guvment out of our lives" from the right, their argument falls apart when it comes to stuff like this. government or no government. No a la carteIt's just like the people on the left. They are pro-federal on most stuff, and argue against states rights issues... until this one comes up. Both parties are generally issue oriented and unprincipled in their reasoning. They take the arguements they like and include them where they feel it suits them. It was the Democrats/Liberals who supported the notion of eminent domain forietures for corporations being justified under the banner of 'increased tax revenue' in the case of Kelo Vs New London. The conservatives were against it. Everyone has their pet issue and price I guess. |
|
Tony B wrote: Both parties are generally issue oriented and unprincipled in their reasoning. They take the arguements they like and include them where they feel it suits them.Ahh - reading that was like a breath of fresh air. |
|
Ben Botelho wrote:this is supposed to be a celebratory thread, guys...not a debate. The arguments against legalizing and regulating marijuana are ludicrous, and if you can't see that then you need some help. To lighten the mood: youtube.com/watch?v=xC8eURJ…It took 7 pages before someone had the brains enough to post a video from the late great Reverend Bill Hicks. RIP Bill, I think you would have been proud...and angry. <3 Oh, and the debate is over. It passed. It passed in two states, with a clear and wide margin. It will likely pass in more states as the archaic arguments against it's legalization are passing on with those that hold to them. This is just the beginning. Honestly, it's a drug, just like caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine. Either you prohibit all of those, or you let people make their own choice. It will be just as illegal to drive under the influence, and it will be even harder for kids to get now. Ask any one of us born in the 80s about how easy it was to get marijuana versus alcohol, and most agree that it was pretty damn hard to get drunk underage. Screw kids anyway, quit using that "think of the children" argument to incarcerate and ruin the rest of our lives. |
|
Tony B wrote: Thanks. My actual point was that a lot of people here who are saying that climbing while altered seem to be misread as people who are straight edges. I think a lot of people who have a lot of experience doing a lot of things are discrete. That's how they stay out of trouble. When I'm not sober and people suggest one thing or another to me that 'sounds like fun' my normal response is: "I don't think that's for me right now." Some old pals and I used to be in a lot of interesting situations with interesting people. Once in the middle of an absolute giggle fest about everything, he points out something that someone should not be doing and asks if I should stop it. "I'm in no condition to be talking to anyone else about their behavior right now." He looked on for a second and turns to me, looks straight in the eye, feigns a shudder, breathes deeply and says: "I want to tell you my secret now..." (OK?) "I see dumb people... walking around with regular people. They only see what they want to see. "They don't even know that they are dumb." I guess that was where I was headed with that. In any case, I'm not sure I'd go as far as you went towards paining psychedelic users as being top tier, but I would say that no tier of society is without them. It certainly doesn't DQ anyone from being top tier. As a sober GF of mine once said when I told her about my history: "You know, it's not for me, but most of the highly intelligent people I know have at least tried a lot of that stuff... I think it is their natural curiosity and intelligence that makes it attractive to them, and their composure that keeps them from being afraid of it." So call us 75% in agreement.Ha well spoken sir. Definitely can relate. I agree with that 100%. Thanks. |
|
So it begins. |
|
Lynn S. "I don't believe I ever said all pot smokers end up in rehab. You all are getting pretty worked up, that's not good for your health." |
|
good news Jason! |
|
Jason N. wrote:So it begins. coloradoan.com/article/2012…I don't even like or use pot but I say GOOD! Let's start focusing on "crimes" that have victims. |
|
haha Tony...this society does not care about its victims! Where did you get that notion? We live off Justice! We want the bad man in jail, he broke the law! |
|
Tony B wrote: I don't even like or use pot but I say GOOD! Let's start focusing on "crimes" that have victims.Fair-weather Libertarianism. So hard to come by these days. Ha |
|
We have 25% of the world's incarcerated people, for the record. Marc H wrote: Fair-weather Libertarianism. So hard to come by these days. HaI really doubt that you understand what Libertarianism is. More socially liberal than your side if you want to know. |
|
If industry decided that climbing is too risky on THEIR property, then by all means it should be that way...same thing with marijuana regulation. |
|
CaZ were Americans? What do I win? |
|
chufftard wrote: And if your industry decided that climbing is too risky of a sport, would that be as it should be too? Or, maybe you are gay and they are bible thumpers? Cannibis again and again has proved to be a harmless, esp compared to an activity like climbing, yet you support discriminating against it.What would climbing on my time have to do with work? My line of work involves heavy equipment, dangerous tools and situations. You cannot be high, drunk, or even off-balance b/c of prescribed medications. You cannot perform many tasks even if you have a physical handicap that impairs safety, like deafness. Safety of everyone around is the paramount element at work. If you insist that a crane operator be allowed to operate one with anything at all in his system means you are a dangerous idiot. |
|
chufftard wrote: If you are drug tested, you are their property! If they are telling you what to do on your free time, your ass belongs to them! Entitled? More like fascism. If co says you can puff recreationally and jobs still give au then the employer is the entitled one.No...this mentality is sickening! People don't DESERVE jobs, those jobs are owned by the companies. If a company wants a particular person for a job (barring Title VII limitations), it has the right to only select that person, or terminate those who don't fit the required description. "if you don't like it, leave." Edit: state or other government hirers should NOT be given such deference, though, unless safety calls for such requirements. Public employers should have to take every precaution against taking rights away from their employees. |
|
Mike Lane wrote: What would climbing on my time have to do with work? My line of work involves heavy equipment, dangerous tools and situations. You cannot be high, drunk, or even off-balance b/c of prescribed medications. You cannot perform many tasks even if you have a physical handicap that impairs safety, like deafness. Safety of everyone around is the paramount element at work. If you insist that a crane operator be allowed to operate one with anything at all in his system means you are a dangerous idiot.Does your job allow you to go home and have a beer or two on your own time, as long as you're not inebriated when you are working? Because you certainly could fail a urine test after smoking the night before (or even week before), even if you were completely sober on the job. Although, a big part of WA's legalization movement was the fact that in the last few years, the science of determining how much cannabis is in your system has really improved beyond urine tests, and their new law has even established DUI standards and tests that will prosecute those who drive stoned, as opposed to prosecuting those with any trace of it in their body. Seems like a pretty practical way to get away from the prohibitionary moral policing that most drug tests are based on today. If anyone is interested, here is a great write-up of the details concerning the Washington law: thestranger.com/seattle/the… |
|
Marc H wrote: Fair-weather Libertarianism. So hard to come by these days. HaHuh? A libertarian says that legalizing pot is good even if he doesn't use it and that's an inconsistency? Either I don't understand your statement or your logic. I'm pretty consistent. I'd legalize pretty much everything that doesn't have a victim. |
|
Tony B, you're alright with me. I agree that victimless crimes should be more or less ignored. I don't see that as "fair weather" libertarianism, at all...seems quite consistent with the sentiments of libertarianism to me |