The Red and Black

Originally posted by

Jay

My God, Marc, we actually agree.

This may be the best article you've ever written. It's thoughtful, focused, and detailed.

Let me warn you, however. The weed-toking hippies are going to come out of the woodwork, lambasting you and your column for being "conformist" and whatever other unoriginal (and wrong-headed) insult that they can imagine--which might not be much, given their weed-addled minds. Still, ignore those people. Keep fighting the good fight.

And tell Waites that not only is Bob Marley dead, but so is Jimi Hendrix. Tell him that the best music doesn't come from the classic rock section at Wal-Mart.

I hate to post on this thing again, but I couldn't let that one go. I won't tell Waites that because it's not true- the best music does come from the classic music section. I've got everything Hendrix ever did-on vinyl.

So thanks for the nice words, but Jimi being dead doesn't mean a thing when you hear that wailing guitar.

Originally posted by

Jay

Let me warn you, however. The weed-toking hippies are going to come out of the woodwork, lambasting you and your column for being "conformist" and whatever other unoriginal (and wrong-headed) insult that they can imagine--which might not be much, given their weed-addled minds. Still, ignore those people. Keep fighting the good fight.

This isn't a fight that is going to be won with insults. The facts are on the "weed-toking hippies" side. Also, why would anyone for legalization come after Mcafee? He just agreed marijuana should be legalized, and proceeded to offer suggestions.

We are coming out of the woodwork, because science, 50 Government studies (most from the U.S.), and 500 economists agree: Marijuana should be decriminalized. Keep up the good fight though. It seems cigarette smokers will be right here next to us "stoners" if this prohibitionist attitude keeps up.

I am pro-legalization, and I don't even use marijuana. I'm sure even marijuana users can agree to an image problem. Its obviously a problem with their campaign. Its a shame it matters despite so much information supporting their cause.

Originally posted by

Jay

And tell Waites that not only is Bob Marley dead, but so is Jimi Hendrix. Tell him that the best music doesn't come from the classic rock section at Wal-Mart.

Asshole.

Originally posted by

Richard

Marc, could you and the rest of the editorial writers please stop using this style of writing?

"Got High" is not - I repeat, not - an anti-drug song."

You aren't repeating it, you are rewriting. It just looks out of place and silly. This isn't a transcript of some speech, it is an article. Please write it as such.

Sorry, it doesn't matter much, but it makes me rage.

Hey Mr. English professor, did you realize that you put 3 quotation marks in 1 sentence? You should have used single quotation marks on 'Got High.' What have you been smoking?

Originally posted by

NP

...
The only other doctor to testify was Dr. James C. Munch. His sole claim to fame was that he had injected some extract of marijuana directly into the brains of 300 dogs, and two of them died. When they asked him what he conclude from this, he said he didn't know. Dr. Munch also testified in court, under oath, that marijuana could make your fangs grow six inches long and drip with blood. He also said that, when he tried it, it turned him into a bat. Dr. Munch served as US Official Expert on marijuana for 25 years...

Dr. Munch then went on to change his name and lead the AI program at the University of Georgia.

Originally posted by

Phillip

The article is about the image projected by most of those active in legalization efforts.

I agree with the article, and felt it was a good venue to help inform people that may not be aware of the situation. I apologize for trying to help.

Please, dear, stop reflecting the subtle bigotry that is so common in our society. If you actually took the time to research the subject, the image marijuana users portray really shouldn't be an issue. These laws are absurd, and a tragedy to civil liberties the founding fathers held so dear.

While I am glad that Mr. Mcaffee is indifferent on the issue, I feel it is wise to help those with his POV to be better informed. These laws are not an issue of letting "smelly stoners" having their "lazy way". They are an issue of prohibition not working, and actually adding to the problem. I understand if you wish to remain ignorant on the subject, but there is no need to lash out insults to someone involved in social reform.

Originally posted by

StopArrestingMe

We dont ned to legalize marijuana becaue all the damn libs will be stumbling around inthe streets trying to make us gay or atheist or an OBrahma worshipper. why you just go hug a tree, climb it, and then jump off of it and crawl back into the hippie ass woodstock womb that you came from. hug a solider today not a tree you libs

As a fellow opponent of liberals and Obama's proposed policies, I urge you to reconsider your opinion on U.S. drug policy. The War on Drugs is certainly not consistent with the conservative principle of small government, nor is it wise fiscal policy.

Originally posted by

StopArrestingMe

We dont ned to legalize marijuana becaue all the damn libs will be stumbling around inthe streets trying to make us gay or atheist or an OBrahma worshipper. why you just go hug a tree, climb it, and then jump off of it and crawl back into the hippie ass woodstock womb that you came from. hug a solider today not a tree you libs

DOCTAR CONGRESSMAN PAUL SAYS TAXES IS RONG! i SUPORT HIM! MARJANA IS COOL IF YOU DON'T STIK A BUDD IN YOUR LADYBITSS TO KMAKE YUR ABBABBY DIES! HW HATESES THAT!!1 PLEAZE SINE MY PETITIONN TO LEGAMALIZE MARAJAGUANO NOW!!

P.S. ORANGE STAINS ON PETTIIONSD ARE ONLY BECAOSE I AM VERY BUSTY WITH WoW RIGHT NOW! THANKS!!11!

No on Ron Paul? Okay, how about William F. Buckley?
http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html

And for anyone who doesn't already know, the congressman to whom you mockingly refer as "DOCTAR" earned his MD from Duke University. But I guess calling him "DOCTAR" pretty much trumps any credibility that might have. Nice job!

If you actually have an argument, it'd be nice to hear.

Then again, I guess it's safer to waste brainpower coming up with insults and fantasizing about hand jobs, because you can't ever technically lose a debate if you don't engage, right?

face

Looks like I touched a nerve! For the record, I've got nothing against hand jobs, so you can take it down a notch. I thought this was about drug policy, but I'll humor you for this post and no more.

"Exactly which liberal policies are you against?"

Pretty much anything that involves increasing the size and power of federal government, especially at taxpayers' expense. I'll run through your list.

"Preventing the collapse of the global financial system because a decade of a 'police yourself' philosophy turned out not to be such a hot idea?"

Government intervention is the very cause of our financial system's collapse. Government-backed lenders created a market for risky lending, and a diversification policy signed by President Clinton worsened it.

As President Obama put it, the financial system is collapsing because executives have taken huge, foolish risks for too long. What he didn't mention is that these risks weren't so risky for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, because, like it or not, they've long had the option of falling back on Uncle Sam. With giants like these willing to buy up pretty much any fucked up mortgage paper that smaller banks had to pass along, why wouldn't banks take wild risks?

Banks were being leaned on by the government to diversify home ownership, and that forced them to make loans to people who couldn't pay them back. Luckily, they didn't have to worry about long-term viability of these loans, because they could just offload them to Fannie, Freddie, and these banks' 100% private-sector competitors (who were forced to follow suit just to survive, thanks to the market created by your ever-expanding government).

"Monitoring volcanos?"

Boy, this one's out of left-field. Let residents of Georgia decide whether or not they have an interest in monitoring volcanoes, and they'll invest their money accordingly. I don't think it's okay to have a bunch of guys in D.C. tell us to fork over cash for them to spend as they see fit, and lock us up if we refuse.

"Exploring the war crimes committed under the bush administration?"

I abhor plenty about the Bush administration. I certainly think its members should be held accountable for any and all war crimes they may have committed. And for the record, President Bush is a very poor example of a conservative.

"Unemployment benefits for people so fucked they don't know how they're going to feed their children next week? Not throwing people out on the street?"

Charity should be dispersed by local agencies and charities, not a bunch of morons in D.C. who arbitrarily select qualifying factors and never even meet its recipients. As it stands, we send a ton of money to D.C., then cross our fingers and hope that they send enough back.

Also, if you took a look at the budget that was released yesterday, you'll know that Obama is reducing tax deductions for charitable contributions. That's surely not going to encourage anyone. Then again, I guess his strategy is to use taxes as a method of forcing people to donate, except he gets to decide to whom. It may be your money, but it's no longer your decision. Obama is the new decider.

"Getting our health care system in line with every other industrialized democracy and thereby removing a huge burden from US businesses, which would make them much more competitive?"

Health insurance costs would not be so burdensome if there weren't so many damn restrictions on potential insurers. There are currently only a handful of companies selling insurance to small businesses in most states, leaving slim pickings and higher prices. The last thing I want is a bunch of morons in D.C. telling doctors what services they can offer and to whom. Look at Canada. Doctors are often forced to refuse surgeries to older patients when there are younger patients also in need. Even if an older patient offers to pay out of pocket, the doctor must still refuse treatment or he/she will face legal consequences, so the patient must fly out of the country to get treatment. I don't want to give the government to have my health records, and I don't want them telling doctors who is worthy of treatment. 1984, anyone?

"Energy independence?"

The government only impedes our progress toward energy independence. Hopefully you say something about drug policy further down, this is getting annoying.

"Equal rights for gay people?"

I support "gay rights." Both straight and gay individuals already have "equal rights." But that's semantics. I do not believe that the government should have a hand in marriages, nor in adoption policies as they concern gay people.

"Rescuing people who are drowning?"

If I see someone drowning, I'm going to do what I can to help them, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of those who were wise and/or lucky enough not to share the drowning party's predicament. I'd expect people nearby to assist as they could. I wouldn't run around knocking on doors with a gun, telling people to chip in for a life preserver.

"You were born too late for this debate. Conservatives have proven once and for all that people who don't believe in government shouldn't be in charge of it. They did it all by themselves and have absolutely no one else to blame for their performance."

Conclusion, check. Premises, absent.

"The burden is on you to explain to the rest of us how the pack of gibbering assholes who read "My Pet Goat" during 9/11, renamed french fries, lied their fucking asses off to get us into Iraq (and then denied doing so,) smeared combat veterans in the '04 elections, fired USAs for not bringing politically-motivated prosecutions,"

My response to your comment about war crimes applies here.

"attempted to turn Social Security over to the stewardship of the free market (do you have grandparents?)"

Social Security shouldn't exist in the first place. But it does, and you'd rather rely on the federal government than yourself to handle it because you're too lazy? Or maybe you're scared that someone will do a better job than you and you hate to come in second? Or maybe you're just too busy to learn how to manage finances? Say what you want, I know that I don't want to have to count on Uncle Sam to protect *any* of my investments, I want to do it myself.

"outed a covert CIA operative working on WMDs (you know, that stuff we didn't find in Iraq,) wiretapped Americans without warrants, tortured prisoners, and countless other mishaps deserve the time of day, let alone serious consideration."

Again, these are things I also abhor. But, they have nothing to do with my original comment.

"Before I forget, Tom DeLay, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, David Vitter, Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, Dusty Foggo, Brent Wilkes, Alberto Gonzales, Porter Goss, the AIPAC fuckers on trial for espionage, the FL Republican who offered a cop $20 for GIVING a blowjob, and countless others. Lorita Doan. Brad Schlozman. Rove, Bolten, and Myers defying lawful subpoenas. Sarah Palin holding white pride rallies. Romney offering to "double Gitmo." Abu Ghraib. Bagram. Black sites. Extraordinary rendition."

Not even sure where you're going with this. I didn't say I was a Republican... the time you spent writing that was completely wasted. Maybe you could research investment options for Social Security rather than compiling a list of fun-time topics for Chris Matthews fans.

"Defend them all, without exception. Explain to me how those assholes have any moral authority over me."

They don't. That's why they shouldn't be able to force you to give them part of your paycheck, while they make the decisions about whom receives your charity. We agree, they have NO moral authority. Oddly, you want to give them power to exercise moral authority. Strange.

"Explain to me why I should give a damn what any of them have said. Explain to me why anyone anywhere should listen to what they have to say. Only after that can we have a debate on current policy."

Drug policy discussion, please. Drug policy.

"Or you can stock up on Jergens. Your call."

I am getting bored off my ass replying to this stuff. Drug policy.

Oh yeah, and since you mentioned extraordinary rendition, don't forget recent developments!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/09/obama-maintains-bush-posi_n_165376.html

And again, for the record, I never stated support for the practice of extraordinary rendition.

Okay, that's all from me with regard to non-drug policy debate. If you come up with something I find particularly worthy of my response, maybe I'll post again, but it's unlikely. If you actually would like to continue debate, fyi, I'd be more inclined if you'd try to get a little less wild with regard to the scope and tone of your argument.

One last thing:

You seem like a pretty funny guy, and clearly you're as into politics as I am. We probably agree on plenty, but obviously not everything. If you're ever interested in meeting up around town to have a beer or cup of coffee and some entertaining political debate, I'd probably enjoy it, so feel free to email me at ugagrad2005 at gmail dot com. I know that sounds odd, but I'm not kidding. No handjobs though.

If you do decide to post again, please include an email address and I'd be happy to reply to non-drug policy issues offsite.

Obama? What? is officially the man.

I can't tell whether or not you're serious. If so, you just solidified Marc's point, and I'm guessing you're stoned right now. Look at this: +-(o)(o)-+ OMFG LOOKS LIKE iBALLZZ!!

"Actually, we don't have a drug policy debate to speak of. I'm all in favor of legalizing and taxing pot; we likely part ways where that idiot Glenn Beck says "get high, but don't ask me to pay for your health care."

You are correct.

"Anecdotally, I remember signing a UGA NORML petition before paying $15 to buy a t-shirt with a pot leaf/ arches logo, and putting down a fake name b/c I was convinced that Reagan/Bush I DEA would be all over that list like flies on shit. If you graduated UGA in 2005 at twenty-one or twenty-two years old, you were probably six at the time."

I've done my share of behind-the-scenes work for drug policy reform, but I've openly done quite a bit as well. It's unfortunate that people supportive of reform are so often unwilling to share their opinions, but I guess inducing that fear is just one component of the War on Drugs that will have to be overcome.

"Thank you for the invitation, and I believe you mean it in earnest, but I'm afraid I must decline it. And since non-drug policy debate bores you (I mean, it's not like anything else is going on, amirite?) I'll limit myself to a single response to one answer of yours."

Well, the invitation remains on the table if you change your mind. Pretty much anything that has to do with politics is exciting to me, but my main interest lies in drug policy. Other stuff can get kind of boring in comparison, especially when I enter a discussion seeking to talk about drug policy. The reason I wanted a focus on drug policy discussion here is that there's so rarely a public venue for it, and I'd prefer not to squander one on an all-encompassing political brouhaha, when there already exist so many opportunities for that.

"Volcano monitoring was referred to by Bobby Jindal, the LA Gov. from 30 Rock, as a $140 million example of useless and wasteful DC spending in his speech of Tuesday night. Setting aside the painful irony of a governor from Louisiana not seeing the value in monitoring potential natural disasters, consider this. If the Yellowstone Caldera ever blows whole hog, it will be a global event; ash will be thrown miles into the sky and reduce temperatures globally for months to years, depending."

Understood.

"Your philosophy would leave it up to Ranger Rick to keep an eye on it when he isn't busy chasing Yogi and Boo-boo for stealing pic-a-nic baskets (and while I'm sure the US Forest Service is abhorrent to you, at least he's enforcing property rights in pursuit of said pic-a-nic baskets.) Do you really want it to be left to the locals there whether or not there should be monitoring, or would you like a month or two to harvest crops early, prepare shelters and stockpile food, medicine and other emergency supplies?"

I'll use this point to segue into my stance on drug policy. My "philosophy" leaves it up to individuals to be knowledgeable of both potential and developing problems and to organize/respond accordingly.

I believe that it is a grave mistake for people to become increasingly dependent on an outside entity to oversee/make their decisions. This especially applies to an entity like the federal government, which is bloated, inefficient, and has ironically granted itself the capacity to self-megafinance (via force) at the expense of a largely disengaged populace, who also, ironically, rely upon it to "educate" the next generation of citizens. Frightening, but I digress.

My point is that such a dependency encourages and perpetuates ignorance and laziness... kind of like the ignorance and laziness that made it so easy for Americans to continue dumping money onto the doorsteps of investment banks that were blatantly stockpiling bad paper during a housing bubble, and then quizzically become enraged at the President when they need a scapegoat after opening their eyes to see their retirement savings taking a nosedive. Also not unlike the dependency that has enabled drug-related crime to turn Phoenix, Arizona into the #2 kidnapping capital of the entire world (surpassed only by Mexico City), while the majority of us run around with blinders on, like a bunch of idiots, expecting an increasingly monolithic government to "take care of it."

Originally posted by

BusteD

I honestly would love to hear anyone's thoughts on that proposition. While, I understand this may not seem like the time to push this legislation, but it is. During an economic downturn, who is going to turn down a $36 billion cash crop?

Let me remind you, that is a very, VERY conservative estimate. I have seen some place it as high as $80 billion.

If anyone is interested, you can also reach me at: Busted.NORML@gmail.com

Originally posted by

Public Service Announcement

I had Friends With Problems. Let the cops send an undercover to rent an apartment two doors down from your best friends, and then get back to me on the pseudonymity thing.

Do you mind elaborating your "friends with problems"? I fail to understand how signing a petition could lead to an undercover sting.