Weed decriminalization begins this Friday
[views:13246][posts:187]_____________________________________
[Dec 30,2008 9:59am - Josh_Martin ""]
Any questions, go here.
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges...rans1005possession-of-marihuana.pdf
[Dec 30,2008 10:04am - arilliusbm ""]
awesome.
[Dec 30,2008 10:16am - inject-now ""]
do you just get a $100 ticket if you get pulled over with a joint lit up? i browsed through the link and it didn't say anything about operating a car while smoking.
[Dec 30,2008 10:29am - ScmFck ""]
"By way of illustration rather than limitation, possession of one ounce or less of marihuana shall not provide a basis to deny an offender student financial aide, public housing or any form of public financial assistance including unemployment benefits, TO DENY THE RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE or to disqualify an offender from serving as a foster parent or adoptive parent." Its kinda confusing honestly but i think that means they can't take your license away anymore.
[Dec 30,2008 10:29am - ScmFck ""]
so i assume smoking while driving would not matter
[Dec 30,2008 10:32am - Yeti ""]
i think that would fall under the "public use" section. this is great news.
[Dec 30,2008 10:33am - arilliusbm ""]
I thought I heard it would be a DUI
[Dec 30,2008 10:33am - Yeti ""]
i think that means that you can't have your license suspended if operating under the influence. i think that if you are driving while stoned they could be dicks and get you for OUI.
[Dec 30,2008 10:34am - Yeti ""]
wait that doesn't make any sense.
[Dec 30,2008 10:34am - Yeti ""]
there are still many loopholes.
[Dec 30,2008 10:37am - RustyPS ""]
I think that means if you possess less than an ounce, they can't take your license away for it....but if you're actually driving whilst high, I think that's a different story....I could be wrong though
[Dec 30,2008 10:44am - Yeti ""]
yeah thats what i was trying to say.
[Dec 30,2008 10:45am - Josh_Martin ""]
If you get convicted of posession, you will no longer lose your license.
If you get caught driving while high, you can be charged with OUI, just like always.
[Dec 30,2008 10:46am - inject-now ""]
thats so fucking gay.
[Dec 30,2008 10:48am - Yeti ""]
my question is how do they determine you were driving while high? i mean obviously there are telltale signs, but as with a breathalyzer you'd need some kind of proof. i wonder if this would make it easier for a cop to say you were driving while high.
[Dec 30,2008 10:50am - arilliusbm ""]
if they smell pot in your car, you're fucked. best thing to do is pay attention while driving, carry some visine, light a cigarette/cigar, roll the windows down, and get some spray.
or, smoke before you drive.
[Dec 30,2008 10:51am - Yeti ""]
yeah exactly, don't be stupid about it.
[Dec 30,2008 10:55am - arilliusbm ""]
i put thousands of smoking miles on my car during the college days.
[Dec 30,2008 10:56am - pam ""]
So if I were to say...fishbowl my bedroom...could the neighbors call the cops? I don't smoke in my apt cause of the kids and all but I'm just curious.
[Dec 30,2008 10:58am - FuckIsMySignature ""]
thought this was already in effect...oops
[Dec 30,2008 11:11am - ScmFck ""]
Possession also includes having THC in the bloodstream.
[Dec 30,2008 11:14am - arilliusbm ""]
pam, just buy a volcano for 600 bucks. 98% THC hits (as opposed to 50-65% smoked) and it barely smells.
[Dec 30,2008 11:17am - pam ""]
Nice to know if I ever got bagged I wouldn't lose my kids and shit. I always worried about that.
[Dec 30,2008 11:28am - Pires ""]
how about not smoking at all because of kids? Time to grow up. Whether or not it's in the house, it's still fucked
[Dec 30,2008 11:31am - arilliusbm ""]
there is no difference than drinking a few beers to relax or smoking IMO. just don't do either around kids.
if it at all threatens their safety and yours, then yea, give it up.
nothing wrong with wanting to relax man, as long as you're a RESPONSIBLE adult.
[Dec 30,2008 11:31am - pam ""]
Pires said:how about not smoking at all because of kids? Time to grow up. Whether or not it's in the house, it's still fucked
But it's cool to drink beer right? Yeah. Jump off your pedestal, dickhead.
[Dec 30,2008 11:34am - pam ""]
arilliusbm said:there is no difference than drinking a few beers to relax or smoking IMO. just don't do either around kids.
if it at all threatens their safety and yours, then yea, give it up.
nothing wrong with wanting to relax man, as long as you're a RESPONSIBLE adult.
Exactly. I hardly ever smoke, hardly ever have more than a beer. My kids are well taken care of, loved, and provided for.
I know plently of straight edge "grown ups" that are shitty parents. And I'm not having this fucking argument with some asshole that doesn't know shit about me.
[Dec 30,2008 11:34am - tylor ""]
pam said:
Pires said:how about not smoking at all because of kids? Time to grow up. Whether or not it's in the house, it's still fucked
But it's cool to drink beer right? Yeah. Jump off your pedestal, dickhead.
lol @ assumptions
[Dec 30,2008 11:35am - arilliusbm ""]
I've seen this one couple in my town smoking a joint while walking their kid in a carriage. Although I am for legalization, it's still an intoxicant and should not be exposed around young children.
I can't stand people that drink and then tell people that smoke to grow up.
[Dec 30,2008 11:37am - pam ""]
I watch gross broads chainsmoking butts while pregnant all the time. I wouldn't even eat fish when I was pregnant.
[Dec 30,2008 11:39am - tylor ""]
im only 21, i definitely have never had to take care of a kid, but i dont think quitting weed would make anyone a better parent, especially if said parent has been smoking weed their whole life
[Dec 30,2008 11:43am - pam ""]
There is no difference between a joint and a cocktail. There is no difference between me going out with my girlfriends and hitting a bong and me going out for Chinese food with them and drinking a scorpion bowl. Some people will take any excuse to act superior to someone else.
[Dec 30,2008 11:47am - pam ""]
tylor said:
pam said:
Pires said:how about not smoking at all because of kids? Time to grow up. Whether or not it's in the house, it's still fucked
But it's cool to drink beer right? Yeah. Jump off your pedestal, dickhead.
lol @ assumptions
Edit much? ;)
[Dec 30,2008 12:00pm - sever ""]
If you smoke weed for long enough, a bong rip is like a morning coffee - you could go without if you had to... but why would you ever have to?
Weed only intoxicates you if you smoke more than reasonable amount. If you're smoking to get intoxicated, you're a moron. There are so many other qualities in weed that allow you to be more philosophical and creative than you ever could sober. I dont think using this drug would affect parental skills at all, and in fact, I believe it could allow someone to be a BETTER parent by facilitating the understanding of other points of view.
[Dec 30,2008 12:04pm - tylor ""]
pam said:
tylor said:
pam said:
Pires said:how about not smoking at all because of kids? Time to grow up. Whether or not it's in the house, it's still fucked
But it's cool to drink beer right? Yeah. Jump off your pedestal, dickhead.
lol @ assumptions
Edit much? ;)
haha had a hard time figuring out what i was trying to say
[Dec 30,2008 12:05pm - tylor ""]
sever said:If you smoke weed for long enough, a bong rip is like a morning coffee - you could go without if you had to... but why would you ever have to?
Weed only intoxicates you if you smoke more than reasonable amount. If you're smoking to get intoxicated, you're a moron. There are so many other qualities in weed that allow you to be more philosophical and creative than you ever could sober. I dont think using this drug would affect parental skills at all, and in fact, I believe it could allow someone to be a BETTER parent by facilitating the understanding of other points of view.
bingo
[Dec 30,2008 12:05pm - FuckIsMySignature ""]
sever said:If you smoke weed for long enough, a bong rip is like a morning coffee - you could go without if you had to... but why would you ever have to?
Weed only intoxicates you if you smoke more than reasonable amount. If you're smoking to get intoxicated, you're a moron. There are so many other qualities in weed that allow you to be more philosophical and creative than you ever could sober. I dont think using this drug would affect parental skills at all, and in fact, I believe it could allow someone to be a BETTER parent by facilitating the understanding of other points of view.
it is NOT cool to all yo baby's cereal.
[Dec 30,2008 12:33pm - ouchdrummer ""]
I love weed. Weed weed weed. weed shmeed kiki meed weed weed weed!
Gimme a W
W
Gimme a pair of E's
E
E
Gimme a D
D
What do you get?
I love weed. Weed weed weed. weed shmeed kiki meed weed weed weed!
Gimme a W
[Dec 30,2008 12:35pm - oscarct ""]
I have never envyd mass till now
[Dec 30,2008 12:41pm - DestroyYouAlot ""]
This thread is giving me the munchies.
[Dec 30,2008 1:32pm - dftg ""]
pam said: I wouldn't even eat fish when I was pregnant.
Because of mercury?
[Dec 30,2008 1:38pm - FuckIsMySignature ""]
thats why you should eat dolphins instead... they make your children smarter and swim better.
[Dec 30,2008 1:55pm - oscarct ""]
FuckIsMySignature said:thats why you should eat dolphins instead... they make your children smarter and swim better.
hahaha
[Dec 30,2008 2:50pm - Pires ""]
I don't drink or smoke weed. I'm not on a pedestal. I'm just saying there's more to life than getting high or drunk. Losing your kids because of something you can control is stupid. Especially when it comes to weed. And you're right, there are responsible adults. But I just have a problem with parents who smoke with young children.
[Dec 30,2008 2:52pm - brian_dc ""]
And he's not straight edge, before he gets attacked for that.
[Dec 30,2008 2:59pm - Josh_Martin ""]
Pires said:I don't drink or smoke weed. I'm not on a pedestal. I'm just saying there's more to life than getting high or drunk. Losing your kids because of something you can control is stupid. Especially when it comes to weed. And you're right, there are responsible adults. But I just have a problem with parents who smoke with young children.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Douche
Who the fuck loses their kids because of weed?
And you actually are putting yourself on a big pedestal of faggotry. You are equating "growing up" with quitting weed. That is dumb.
[Dec 30,2008 3:05pm - Conservationist ""]
Pires said:I'm just saying there's more to life than getting high or drunk.
I agree.
[Dec 30,2008 3:08pm - arilliusbm ""]
There's a lot to life.
I feel more connected to music while smoking than I do sober. Simple as that. That's the primary reason why I enjoy smoking. I don't parade around smoke irresponsibly. I enjoy relaxing and listening to music, sober or not.
[Dec 30,2008 3:09pm - porphyria ""]
my ex-gf's parents use to get high with her friends (much younger) with their other 10-11 year old daughter in the next room. It was pretty uncomfortable to be around that.
people can do what they want, I don't really care. I'll never understand why some people can't function without getting high or get drunk constantly...or is that backwards? oh well!
[Dec 30,2008 3:13pm - dreadkill ""]
brian_dc said:And he's not straight edge, before he gets attacked for that.does that mean that instead of weed and booze he's into hard drugs? :spineyes:
i know what you mean. there are plenty of people who don't do drugs or drink and don't label themselves straightedge. they are just people who prefer not to engage in drug or alcohol use. doesn't make them better than anyone else or gayer.
[Dec 30,2008 3:20pm - Yeti ""]
Pires said:I'm just saying there's more to life than getting high or drunk.
so because you feel that way, then anyone who feels differently is immature? i enjoy the worlds of both greenery and beer and have huge aspirations for the future, and i work very hard to maintain my choice of lifestyle. i also get a lot out of life, and in ways, i feel i may get a little bit more out of life. does that mean things can't be accomplished with substances in my life? absolutely not. thats ridiculous to assume. just because some fuckhead ruined his life because he couldn't control his extra-curricular activities doesn't mean that everyone is like that. think man.
[Dec 30,2008 3:20pm - Pires ""]
the state can take your kids if they find you to be irresponsible. Trust me. I know weed isn't that big of a deal. But all it takes is one or two fuck ups and you're done. I'm sure many of you are great parents. I'd honestly just hate to see someone not only screw up their life, but their kids life as well. Especially since mass. has now decriminalized weed. It's not meant to be a free for all. And yes. You can still be charged for oui. And heavy smokers have weed in their system for up to 30 days. And the shitty part is, they can get you for oui even if you hadn't smoked that day. If they take a blood test, and it's in your blood, you can and will be charged with oui. It's up to the court and your lawyer to prove otherwise. Extremely faulty system yes, and I don't agree with it, but it is out there.
[Dec 30,2008 3:23pm - Yeti ""]
but if you are stupid enough to get caught and ruin your life, then you are one of the ones that brings a bad name to the responsible ones, and thus no sympathy is deserved. anyone who gets caught is an idiot, its so easy to be cautious and it really only takes an extra second to do so.
[Dec 30,2008 3:24pm - arilliusbm ""]
"you realize you're going 10 miles below the speed limit, right?
"yes, officer"
"time for a blood test, fucker."
[Dec 30,2008 3:25pm - Yeti ""]
"you know how fast you were going?"
"65?"
"63"
"but isn't the speed limit 65?"
"yeah....it is"
[Dec 30,2008 3:26pm - pam ""]
Oh well thank you for your genuine concern for me and my family.
Eat a dick.
[Dec 30,2008 3:27pm - Pires ""]
haha. In all seriousness, I have a feeling many teens are going to ruin this for the people who like to just chill and smoke.
[Dec 30,2008 3:28pm - pam ""]
Pires said:the state can take your kids if they find you to be irresponsible. Trust me. I know weed isn't that big of a deal. But all it takes is one or two fuck ups and you're done. I'm sure many of you are great parents. I'd honestly just hate to see someone not only screw up their life, but their kids life as well. Especially since mass. has now decriminalized weed. It's not meant to be a free for all. And yes. You can still be charged for oui. And heavy smokers have weed in their system for up to 30 days. And the shitty part is, they can get you for oui even if you hadn't smoked that day. If they take a blood test, and it's in your blood, you can and will be charged with oui. It's up to the court and your lawyer to prove otherwise. Extremely faulty system yes, and I don't agree with it, but it is out there.
Find me ONE person who isn't one fuck up away from ruining their life. That's life, and it applies to EVERYONE.
[Dec 30,2008 3:28pm - DestroyYouAlot ""]
Littering and... Littering and... Littering and...
[Dec 30,2008 3:29pm - Yeti ""]
pam said:Oh well thank you for your genuine concern for me and my family.
Eat a dick.
you are awesome.
[Dec 30,2008 3:30pm - dreadkill ""]
regardless of whether it's getting caught smoking pot, forgetting to turn the oven off, or driving carelessly, pam's right: everyone is basically one mistake away from ruining their life.
[Dec 30,2008 3:31pm - ouchdrummer ""]
Conservationist said:
Pires said:I'm just saying there's more to life than getting high or drunk.
I agree.
What makes you think anyone thinks getting high or drunk is the most important thing in life? The fact that we are excited that we won't be arrested for something that should be legal in the first place? For something that has been PROVEN to reduce the risk of lung cancer? That's right, not only does the tar from pot NOT give you cancer, it has been proven to REDUCE the risk of getting it. And for just because people get excited that it's being decriminalized, you think they have nothing in their life but getting high or getting drunk.... I don't buy it. You just wanna tell everyone that you DON'T do those things, that you aren't saying it specifically... but you do think your better than us. Seriously, where in this thread did ANYONE say that getting high or drunk trumps serious life goals or ambitions? They didn't.
So shut the fuck up.
[Dec 30,2008 3:34pm - ouchdrummer ""]
... and to boot,
PAM- I know familys that have raised some of the most well balanced, nice, funny, happy children in the world. And their parents smoked weed constantly. Don't listen to people like this who try and make everyone else feel bad, mostly because they don't have anything to feel good about.
[Dec 30,2008 3:34pm - pam ""]
Yeti said:
pam said:Oh well thank you for your genuine concern for me and my family.
Eat a dick.
you are awesome.
Back atcha, Tony.
[Dec 30,2008 3:38pm - porphyria ""]
dreadkill said:pam's right: everyone is basically one mistake away from ruining their life.
For example: I could have humped a fairly attractive thai prostitute in hong kong but I think I made the right choice and walked out of the 'Bar' as soon as one asked me to take her to a hotel room.
Fortunately I drink soda, otherwise I may have been more apt to make a different decision. :spineyes:
[Dec 30,2008 3:38pm - Josh_Martin ""]
Pires said:the state can take your kids if they find you to be irresponsible. Trust me. I know weed isn't that big of a deal. But all it takes is one or two fuck ups and you're done. I'm sure many of you are great parents. I'd honestly just hate to see someone not only screw up their life, but their kids life as well. Especially since mass. has now decriminalized weed. It's not meant to be a free for all. And yes. You can still be charged for oui. And heavy smokers have weed in their system for up to 30 days. And the shitty part is, they can get you for oui even if you hadn't smoked that day. If they take a blood test, and it's in your blood, you can and will be charged with oui. It's up to the court and your lawyer to prove otherwise. Extremely faulty system yes, and I don't agree with it, but it is out there.
Your lack of understanding of the new law is astounding. Please read it a little more closely before talking about it.
The only way DSS is going to bust some parent for smoking weed is if some vindictive piece of shit rats them out. Its not like crack or heroin where you're spending your kid's food and medicine money on drugs.
You claim to not be a "straight edge" but you sure come off like one.
That whole blood test situatuion you're describing is extremely unlikely. That's only going to happen if the cops really want to nail for something much more serious but they need to buy time to gather more evidence. They don't have roadside blood tests.
[Dec 30,2008 3:39pm - porphyria ""]
dreadkill said:pam's right: everyone is basically one mistake away from ruining their life.
For example: I could have humped a fairly attractive thai prostitute in hong kong but I think I made the right choice and walked out of the 'Bar' as soon as one asked me to take her to a hotel room.
Fortunately I drink soda, otherwise I may have been more apt to make a different decision. :spineyes:
[Dec 30,2008 3:40pm - Josh_Martin ""]
porphyria said:my ex-gf's parents use to get high with her friends (much younger) with their other 10-11 year old daughter in the next room. It was pretty uncomfortable to be around that.
people can do what they want, I don't really care. I'll never understand why some people can't function without getting high or get drunk constantly...or is that backwards? oh well!
You are uncomfortable around any drugs in any situation.
[Dec 30,2008 3:40pm - ouchdrummer ""]
Pires said:the state can take your kids if they find you to be irresponsible. Trust me. I know weed isn't that big of a deal. But all it takes is one or two fuck ups and you're done. I'm sure many of you are great parents. I'd honestly just hate to see someone not only screw up their life, but their kids life as well. Especially since mass. has now decriminalized weed. It's not meant to be a free for all. And yes. You can still be charged for oui. And heavy smokers have weed in their system for up to 30 days. And the shitty part is, they can get you for oui even if you hadn't smoked that day. If they take a blood test, and it's in your blood, you can and will be charged with oui. It's up to the court and your lawyer to prove otherwise. Extremely faulty system yes, and I don't agree with it, but it is out there.
Acutally you are very, very wrong.
It is the BURDEN OF THE STATE to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the weed in your system was smoked just prior to, and still in effect during the time you were driving. That's a fact. They have to basically catch you smoking while your driving to get you on a OUI.
and don't talk to the police.
[Dec 30,2008 3:41pm - pam ""]
ouchdrummer said:... and to boot,
PAM- I know familys that have raised some of the most well balanced, nice, funny, happy children in the world. And their parents smoked weed constantly. Don't listen to people like this who try and make everyone else feel bad, mostly because they don't have anything to feel good about.
Both my parents smoke, my dad regularly. Someone should go tell my dad to grow up. That'd be hilarious.
[Dec 30,2008 3:48pm - ouchdrummer ""]
and ANOTHER thing...
the cops can't give you a BLOOD test!! Where the fuck are you getting these ideas? Are you just making them up? You ever heard of privacy? Do you know the search and seizure laws? Do you think if a cop can't search your TRUNK if you don't permit it, that they can take your blood?!! Your an idiot.
[Dec 30,2008 3:52pm - pam ""]
Yeah I giggled at the blood test thing.
[Dec 30,2008 4:02pm - ouchdrummer ""]
maybe i am over-reacting....maybe it's cause i am four days into quitting butts, but when i read such idiotic uninformed crap... i stress a bit... if people would just inform themselves about things BEFORE they state really dumb opinions on said things, i would be much happier.
[Dec 30,2008 4:05pm - Josh_Martin ""]
ouchdrummer said:maybe i am over-reacting....maybe it's cause i am four days into quitting butts, but when i read such idiotic uninformed crap... i stress a bit... if people would just inform themselves about things BEFORE they state really dumb opinions on said things, i would be much happier.
Its not just you. That shit bugs the hell out of me too. Mostly because someone else may read what this idiot is posting and assume it to be true and then the wrong info keeps perpetuating itself.
[Dec 30,2008 4:10pm - arilliusbm ""]
Well, I think Pires has a point. We should abuse this now that it will be in affect. It should be taken in a positive way. I think it will ultimately lead better things for the pot-smoking community in MA. I hope a bunch of idiot thug kids don't drive around smoking non-stop. It will cause more concern for it and well, you know how politicians are.
[Dec 30,2008 4:11pm - arilliusbm ""]
err.. we should not abuse* ahahaha
[Dec 30,2008 4:12pm - arilliusbm ""]
Now that it'll be in effect though, what do you think the general outcome will be? Do you think that it will do all the things the supporters said it will do?
I think so.
[Dec 30,2008 4:14pm - pam ""]
I don't trust cops, therefor I'd never smoke where I would be easily caught anyway. That's just stupid. Plus they'll take my weed and smoke it themselves. Fucking cops.
[Dec 30,2008 4:17pm - pam ""]
arilliusbm said:Now that it'll be in effect though, what do you think the general outcome will be? Do you think that it will do all the things the supporters said it will do?
I think so.
I think those dickheads under the golden dome will overturn it.
[Dec 30,2008 4:27pm - Josh_Martin ""]
arilliusbm said:Well, I think Pires has a point. We should abuse this now that it will be in affect. It should be taken in a positive way. I think it will ultimately lead better things for the pot-smoking community in MA. I hope a bunch of idiot thug kids don't drive around smoking non-stop. It will cause more concern for it and well, you know how politicians are.
No, he has no point at all (not a valid one anyway). Stupid kids cannot ruin it for the rest of us. The new law is actually HARSHER for under 18s caught with weed than before. It forces them to go to drug treatment and if they fail to do that they get even more fucked. Its us adults who get off light now.
I realyl wish people would read the fucking law before talking about it.
[Dec 30,2008 4:29pm - Josh_Martin ""]
pam said:
arilliusbm said:Now that it'll be in effect though, what do you think the general outcome will be? Do you think that it will do all the things the supporters said it will do?
I think so.
I think those dickheads under the golden dome will overturn it.
I was worried about that but I think if they were going to fuck with it, they would have done it by now, before it takes effect. Besides it passed with such an overwhelming majority it would political suicide for whoever brings up a bill to make weed a crime again.
[Dec 30,2008 4:31pm - pam ""]
Hope you're right.
[Dec 30,2008 4:47pm - FuckIsMySignature ""]
Josh_Martin said:
I realyl wish people would read the fucking law before talking about it.
just because you read something doesnt necessarily mean you comprehend it.
[Dec 30,2008 4:57pm - arilliusbm ""]
Ah, shit you're right. I forgot about that whole thing about the under 18s. That's good to hear.
[Dec 30,2008 5:07pm - BobNOMAAMRooney nli ""]
Enough of this pussy weed shit, when are they going to decriminalize heroin!?
[Dec 30,2008 5:30pm - ouchdrummer ""]
Josh_Martin said:
pam said:
arilliusbm said:Now that it'll be in effect though, what do you think the general outcome will be? Do you think that it will do all the things the supporters said it will do?
I think so.
I think those dickheads under the golden dome will overturn it.
I was worried about that but I think if they were going to fuck with it, they would have done it by now, before it takes effect. Besides it passed with such an overwhelming majority it would political suicide for whoever brings up a bill to make weed a crime again.
Exactely. After the landslide that was question 2, and them not overturning it before it takes effect, not only would it be political suicide, but it would take several steps before the law could be reformed again, and hell would be raised before then.
Josh, we don't always (usually....(ever)...) agree, but people who lop pot smoking in with crack, meth, etc.., and who think it should be treated the same way, make me crazy.... and the thing that gets me the most riled up is when people talk about weed like adults, talking about the pros/cons of the new law, and people have to butt in with "There is more to life than getting high" bullshit. What is that, rehearsed? There is no place for comments like that in a discussion like this. It doesn't even make sense to SAY something like that in this thread, all it does is show that they are so damn "different" and that they live a more "pure" lifestyle. Fucking pricks. I can't stand em. Why don't we do away with cold medicine because all it does is mask the symptoms of a cold, and doesn't actually fix anything. Basically, getting you high? Why don't we stop people from exercising to the point of super high natural endorphins? I mean some of those people ADMIT to doing it for the buzz!! Because obviously a "buzz" is inherently evil.... let's think about that for a minute, what is so evil about wanting to do something because it makes you feel good, or relaxes you? What about aromatherapy? How is that different? What about sex with birth control? If you aren't trying to create a child, then is there a point besides the buzz you get? Which don't kid yourselves, intercourse makes your body use a certain chemical called dopamine, and that's right, it gets you real high. Is it because your smoking something? Since when is inhaling gases bad or evil? Is it because your "escaping" so to speak? That's the answer i get most of the time, that they don't need to "escape" like i do, and they think it's wrong.... but i escape much more into music, and books. I do those more often than i get high, and for longer periods, god, i read almost EVERY NIGHT!! I forget EVERYTHING when reading a book. Is that evil? Where do you draw the line? Fuck everyone.
[Dec 30,2008 5:34pm - arilliusbm ""]
ouch, let's puff sometime.
[Dec 30,2008 5:34pm - ouchdrummer ""]
absolutely.
[Dec 30,2008 6:06pm - pam ""]
me three.
[Dec 30,2008 6:11pm - DestroyYouAlot ""]
SHUT UP HIPPIE
[Dec 30,2008 6:15pm - pam ""]
FIGHT ME OR YOU'RE A PUSSY
[Dec 30,2008 6:18pm - DestroyYouAlot ""]
Dude, harsh.
[Dec 30,2008 6:19pm - pam ""]
I just want to love you.
[Dec 30,2008 6:19pm - DestroyYouAlot ""]
SHUT UP HIPPIE
[Dec 30,2008 6:22pm - arilliusbm ""]
DYA eats indian food and then poops his pants during band practices
[Dec 30,2008 6:25pm - DestroyYouAlot ""]
SMELL THE LOVE
[Dec 30,2008 6:49pm - reimroc ""]
DestroyYouAlot said:SMELL THE LOVE
Thats the petrulli oil
[Dec 30,2008 8:08pm - dreadkill ""]
BobNOMAAMRooney%20nli said:Enough of this pussy weed shit, when are they going to decriminalize heroin!? FIGHT WEED OR YOU ARE THE PUSSY
[Dec 30,2008 8:16pm - timtirpation ""]
Yeti said:but if you are stupid enough to get caught and ruin your life, then you are one of the ones that brings a bad name to the responsible ones, and thus no sympathy is deserved. anyone who gets caught is an idiot, its so easy to be cautious and it really only takes an extra second to do so.
ha ha, I'm sorry but this is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.
[Dec 30,2008 8:17pm - BobNOMAAMRooney nli ""]
dreadkill said:
BobNOMAAMRooney%20nli said:Enough of this pussy weed shit, when are they going to decriminalize heroin!? FIGHT WEED OR YOU ARE THE PUSSY
FIGHT HEROIN OR WEED IS THE PUSSY
[Dec 30,2008 10:43pm - Conservationist ""]
ouchdrummer said:and the thing that gets me the most riled up is when people talk about weed like adults, talking about the pros/cons of the new law, and people have to butt in with "There is more to life than getting high" bullshit.
All he's saying is:
People waste their lives away on drugs.
No one need feel like they're missing out because they don't smoke the weed.
[Dec 30,2008 11:33pm - pam ""]
Conservationist said:
ouchdrummer said:and the thing that gets me the most riled up is when people talk about weed like adults, talking about the pros/cons of the new law, and people have to butt in with "There is more to life than getting high" bullshit.
All he's saying is:
People waste their lives away on drugs.
No one need feel like they're missing out because they don't smoke the weed.
And all ouch is saying is that comment came totally out of nowhere and didn't relate to the people here. The way he said it sounded like he was telling us this because it applied to us.
[Dec 31,2008 12:23am - BSV ""]
after thousands of dollars in court fines, fees and lawyer bills for nearly a half dozen offences. after being expelled from high school. after being judged by employers and every other fucker that can't handle or tolerate anyone who dare try to fucking relax....
thank you to the commonwealth of our great state. I've never been more proud to be from here. you know you know somebody who got fucked over one way or another. let the good times roll.
[Dec 31,2008 8:19am - ouchdrummer ""]
thanks pam.
[Dec 31,2008 8:25am - FuckIsMySignature ""]
BSV said:after thousands of dollars in court fines, fees and lawyer bills for nearly a half dozen offences. after being expelled from high school. after being judged by employers and every other fucker that can't handle or tolerate anyone who dare try to fucking relax....
thank you to the commonwealth of our great state. I've never been more proud to be from here. you know you know somebody who got fucked over one way or another. let the good times roll.
here here!
[Dec 31,2008 8:35am - corpus_colostomy ""]
BSV said:after thousands of dollars in court fines, fees and lawyer bills for nearly a half dozen offences. after being expelled from high school. after being judged by employers and every other fucker that can't handle or tolerate anyone who dare try to fucking relax....
thank you to the commonwealth of our great state. I've never been more proud to be from here. you know you know somebody who got fucked over one way or another. let the good times roll.
this state still sucks bro. take into consideration this decision was made ultimately because money was being wasted over-enforcing an antiquated law..not because they recognize your right to 'dare to relax.'
let me remind you...this is also the state where tolls are going to get hiked. this is the state where we will are expected to compensate for the gratuitous over-spending of beacon hill and the big dig.
we get fucking spanked when we spend beyond our means, why then are we expected to bridge the gap, no pun intended.
this is also the state that monopolizes on YOUR sickness by forcing you to have health insurance and if you cant afford it then you will be forced to pay excises on your tax returns. wait, if i cant afford health insurance how could i afford an excise tax?
you want my "stoke" to live in mass lets talk personal cultivation laws that make sense and flesh out the new 'decriminalization,' which will most likely be repealed by the police union...thereby wasting 10x more on posturous, beaurocratic litigation.
[Dec 31,2008 8:56am - Josh_Martin ""]
Its only the DAs and police commissioners that were against prop. 2. Regular beat cops mostly supported it. It makes their jobs much easier and allows them to concentrate on real crime.
The police union won't be repealing anything. They don't have the power, and like I said, most regular cops don't want it repealed.
People who truly can't afford health insurance can get a waiver so they don't have to get it. If you're that fucking broke you can get free (or extremely cheap) insurance from the state. the mandatory health insurance law is not screwing anybody over.
[Dec 31,2008 9:00am - arilliusbm ""]
MassHealth.
[Dec 31,2008 9:03am - Josh_Martin ""]
I have a fucking temp job right now. If it wasn't for the mandatory health insurance law, I would be fucked. And I have to temp so I can tour whenever I want to.
You can't get masshealth if you're working but they have new shit for people who's jobs don't offer insurance. I have no co-pays, scrips only cost from $1-$3 and I pay a lower monthly premium than most people who have it through their jobs.
[Dec 31,2008 9:41am - arilliusbm ""]
I have BlueCross/Sheild PPO plan.. I can pick any doctor I want and don't need a primary care.
But, I pay a decent premium. Sucks.
[Dec 31,2008 10:12am - corpus_colostomy ""]
Josh_Martin said:Its only the DAs and police commissioners that were against prop. 2. Regular beat cops mostly supported it. It makes their jobs much easier and allows them to concentrate on real crime.
The police union won't be repealing anything. They don't have the power, and like I said, most regular cops don't want it repealed.
People who truly can't afford health insurance can get a waiver so they don't have to get it. If you're that fucking broke you can get free (or extremely cheap) insurance from the state. the mandatory health insurance law is not screwing anybody over.
generalizations and blanket statements....are you currently holding office?
[Dec 31,2008 10:18am - FuckIsMySignature ""]
its more likely than you think
[Dec 31,2008 11:08am - ouchdrummer ""]
Office huh? I would vote for corpus for office. (i know that comment was FROM corpus, not to. But that's besides the point.) I don't like the health insurance law at all. I know people personally that have tried to get masshealth/cheaper options, and have been forced to pay money they can't afford to avoid the tax increase. The programs the state offers for people who don't qualify for mass health have restrictions. Like your tax bracket. And they don't take into consideration what costs you may have associated with your personal life. Maybe school loans, maybe other debt, but in my friends case it is 3 kids. She makes enough that she doesn't qualify for any "assisted" healthcare programs, but of that money 100% is needed to support herself and her children. But she still has to pay the premiums in order not to lose more on taxes. While it is an isolated case, the fact that i know someone in that situation implies that there are others who are being... screwed by the state.
[Dec 31,2008 11:35am - Josh_Martin ""]
I'm going to sound like a bigger asshole than usual now, but 3 kids and no health insurance?? Sounds like she screwed herself.
[Dec 31,2008 11:36am - Josh_Martin ""]
I mean, kids have to go to the fucking doctor all the fucking time. There is no way that it is cheaper for her to pay out of pocket, in full, for all those doctors appointments, than it is to pay whatever premium Commonwealth Care is charging her.
Oh yeah, and like I said above, if she can't afford it, there is a waiver form she can fill out and she can list all her expenses and show why she can't afford insurance.
[Dec 31,2008 11:38am - Josh_Martin ""]
corpus_colostomy said:
Josh_Martin said:Its only the DAs and police commissioners that were against prop. 2. Regular beat cops mostly supported it. It makes their jobs much easier and allows them to concentrate on real crime.
The police union won't be repealing anything. They don't have the power, and like I said, most regular cops don't want it repealed.
People who truly can't afford health insurance can get a waiver so they don't have to get it. If you're that fucking broke you can get free (or extremely cheap) insurance from the state. the mandatory health insurance law is not screwing anybody over.
generalizations and blanket statements....are you currently holding office?
No, and neither is anyone is the police union.
[Dec 31,2008 11:52am - ouchdrummer ""]
ok let me clarify... her KIDS have health insurance, she doesn't. It's easy to get kids masshealth. Much easier than adults. And her husband died with shitty life insurance. (young i may add, so thay were totally unprepared.) So while i understand your comments, i don't think they apply to this situation.
[Dec 31,2008 11:53am - ouchdrummer ""]
...and like i said, with her expenses listed, they still will not give her assisted insurance. That's all it comes down to, so while it's not screwing as many people as the young "too lazy to inform themselves" kids may think, it does hurt some.
[Dec 31,2008 12:31pm - pam ""]
It's illegal for children in Massachusetts to be denied health insurance, and if you do not have a means to get insurance, Commonwealth Care is in place and does an income-based premium which is really cheap.
If you have access to health care but cannot afford it, they negotiate a better rate for you.
If you don't have health insurance right now it's because you're not trying to get it.
Ouch- if her kids have Masshealth, she can get Commonwealth Care. Trust me. She needs to keep going up their ass and if she feels they're rejecting her unfairly she needs to call the higher. I'll have to look and see if I can find a number if you like.
[Dec 31,2008 12:34pm - arilliusbm ""]
I hate insurance companies, and yet I work for one. These companies are PURE EVIL.
[Dec 31,2008 12:36pm - ouchdrummer ""]
that'd be great. I know she's talked to more than a couple people about it, and has filled out apps for cheaper insurance three times. I haven't been going through the process with her so i don't know which ones, but i know she said there are different apps for different programs. Whether or not they are state assisted, or state run programs i don't know, but ANY number you can provide would definitely help.
thank you.
[Dec 31,2008 3:51pm - Conservationist ""]
pam said:
Conservationist said:
ouchdrummer said:and the thing that gets me the most riled up is when people talk about weed like adults, talking about the pros/cons of the new law, and people have to butt in with "There is more to life than getting high" bullshit.
All he's saying is:
People waste their lives away on drugs.
No one need feel like they're missing out because they don't smoke the weed.
And all ouch is saying is that comment came totally out of nowhere and didn't relate to the people here. The way he said it sounded like he was telling us this because it applied to us.
I think forums are open places, and if you have a topic, all opinions are gonna get expressed.
I think telling him to shut up about it is a sign of insecurity.
If the state legalized drinking raw frothy AIDS tomorrow, and it was popular, you might want to speak up for the opposing position as well.
[Dec 31,2008 3:56pm - FuckIsMySignature ""]
since when is drinking raw frothy AIDS illegal?
[Dec 31,2008 5:37pm - Conservationist ""]
It isn't?
< drinks >
[Dec 31,2008 9:10pm - SkinSandwich ""]
Everybody issss the smartsz in thsis threadz.
[Dec 31,2008 9:19pm - Lamp ""]
Conservationist said:If the state legalized drinking raw frothy AIDS tomorrow, and it was popular, you might want to speak up for the opposing position as well.
The opposing position to the decriminalization of marijuana is the continued criminalization of marijuana. Saying there's more to life than getting drunk or high (even if I agree with it) is completely irrelevant to the debate. I mean, yeah since it's a forum when you have a topic, people are gonna loosely tie in anything even remotely related to the words at the top of the page, but that doesn't mean that your opinion is valid or interesting.
[Dec 31,2008 9:23pm - SkinSandwich ""]
Everybody issss the smartsz in thsis threadz.
[Jan 1,2009 10:02am - Conservationist ""]
Lamp said:
Conservationist said:If the state legalized drinking raw frothy AIDS tomorrow, and it was popular, you might want to speak up for the opposing position as well.
The opposing position to the decriminalization of marijuana is the continued criminalization of marijuana. Saying there's more to life than getting drunk or high (even if I agree with it) is completely irrelevant to the debate. I mean, yeah since it's a forum when you have a topic, people are gonna loosely tie in anything even remotely related to the words at the top of the page, but that doesn't mean that your opinion is valid or interesting.
That's not technically correct. There is no inherent opposing position, as a number of options await. There are different degrees of decriminalization, legalization is also an option, and there is the option of keeping it unregulated as the Dutch do. But an essential part of this argument is: is marijuana good for you?
I think his point was to echo something a lot of us have seen -- people trashing their hopes by being drug addicts, whether dope or beer. It's a warning all should assess for its relevance to their lives. It's also germaine to the debate.
[Jan 1,2009 10:42am - Lamp ""]
Whether or not marijuana is good for you has nothing to do with whether or not it should be decriminalized or legalized. People are free to make their own decisions, it's something they put in their own bodies.
[Jan 1,2009 11:20am - Conservationist ""]
Lamp said:Whether or not marijuana is good for you has nothing to do with whether or not it should be decriminalized or legalized. People are free to make their own decisions, it's something they put in their own bodies.
No, because there's secondary consequences.
Sane governments do not allow outright destructive things to happen.
If you put something in your body and it makes you a sloth or degenerate, there will be costs for others to pay.
How many heroin addicts do you support with your paycheck?
[Jan 2,2009 8:52am - ouchdrummer ""]
Lamp said:
Conservationist said:If the state legalized drinking raw frothy AIDS tomorrow, and it was popular, you might want to speak up for the opposing position as well.
The opposing position to the decriminalization of marijuana is the continued criminalization of marijuana. Saying there's more to life than getting drunk or high (even if I agree with it) is completely irrelevant to the debate. I mean, yeah since it's a forum when you have a topic, people are gonna loosely tie in anything even remotely related to the words at the top of the page, but that doesn't mean that your opinion is valid or interesting.
I was gonna defend my position of telling pires his comment was silly... then i read what you just said, and it sums it up. No conservationist, i am not insecure about my weed use, and yes i agree with the comment, what i don't agree with is the fact that in an INTELLIGENT conversation, one party saying that in a response is in fact implying that the other side stated otherwise..... anyways, it's strange that pires didn't feel the need to defend the comment but you did. I honestly think you just play devil's advocate whenever no one's on a certain side of an argument for the sole purpose of having a debate.
[Jan 2,2009 8:54am - ouchdrummer ""]
Conservationist said:
Lamp said:Whether or not marijuana is good for you has nothing to do with whether or not it should be decriminalized or legalized. People are free to make their own decisions, it's something they put in their own bodies.
No, because there's secondary consequences.
Sane governments do not allow outright destructive things to happen.
If you put something in your body and it makes you a sloth or degenerate, there will be costs for others to pay.
How many heroin addicts do you support with your paycheck?
And sure i guess i understand what your saying as applied to heroin, but do you think sloth/degenerate applies to pot? And I seriously don't understand the comment about how many heroin addicts his paychecks support, so if you wouldn't mind clarifying.
[Jan 2,2009 10:16am - sever ""]
Sloth and degenerate? I'm sorry, but when I blaze, I'm at the top of my game.
[Jan 2,2009 10:19am - SkinSandwich ""]
Everybody issss the smartsz in thsis threadz.
[Jan 2,2009 10:20am - Conservationist ""]
ouchdrummer said:I honestly think you just play devil's advocate whenever no one's on a certain side of an argument for the sole purpose of having a debate.
Well... "for the sole purpose of having a debate" is incomplete. And most people aren't going to appreciate the reasons why having a debate might be useful, so I'll stay quiet on that.
However, there is also a practical dimension. I have smoked a shitload of weed, and seen both the good and the bad. The good is that it's fun -- anyone denying that is on drugs (errr... or something). The bad is that while you're high, often other opportunities are missed.
And that's about the best summary I can give you. I don't think I'm pro-weed or anti-weed; what I'm against is a dominant paradigm that's inaccurate.
If that ain't "third front," I don't know what is.
ouchdrummer said:And I seriously don't understand the comment about how many heroin addicts his paychecks support, so if you wouldn't mind clarifying.
It's a dual question.
There are secondary consequences to drugs. For example, heroin addicts are not known for their ability to function. Exceptions tend to decrease over time. So they become non-working members of society who still need supporting.
So the first part of the question is: if Lamp believes that the ONLY QUESTION of drug legalization is the individual taking the drug, I'm asking him how many heroin addicts he pays for, since they're going to have to get the money from somewhere.
The second part of the question is what I'm asking others: people who are on drugs (of varied kinds, including alcohol) become inactive. Who's going to pay for that, and would we rather that income go to positive things, like paying for college for a deserving kid who wants more out of life than being fjucked up?
Drugs are not a question of only the individual -- when you think about it, nothing really is.
[Jan 2,2009 10:29am - SkinSandwich ""]
Big words arez the scaryz
Everybody issss the smartsz in thsis threadz.
[Jan 2,2009 10:59am - ouchdrummer ""]
Conservationist said:
ouchdrummer said:I honestly think you just play devil's advocate whenever no one's on a certain side of an argument for the sole purpose of having a debate.
Well... "for the sole purpose of having a debate" is incomplete. And most people aren't going to appreciate the reasons why having a debate might be useful, so I'll stay quiet on that.
However, there is also a practical dimension. I have smoked a shitload of weed, and seen both the good and the bad. The good is that it's fun -- anyone denying that is on drugs (errr... or something). The bad is that while you're high, often other opportunities are missed.
And that's about the best summary I can give you. I don't think I'm pro-weed or anti-weed; what I'm against is a dominant paradigm that's inaccurate.
If that ain't "third front," I don't know what is.
ouchdrummer said:And I seriously don't understand the comment about how many heroin addicts his paychecks support, so if you wouldn't mind clarifying.
It's a dual question.
There are secondary consequences to drugs. For example, heroin addicts are not known for their ability to function. Exceptions tend to decrease over time. So they become non-working members of society who still need supporting.
So the first part of the question is: if Lamp believes that the ONLY QUESTION of drug legalization is the individual taking the drug, I'm asking him how many heroin addicts he pays for, since they're going to have to get the money from somewhere.
The second part of the question is what I'm asking others: people who are on drugs (of varied kinds, including alcohol) become inactive. Who's going to pay for that, and would we rather that income go to positive things, like paying for college for a deserving kid who wants more out of life than being fjucked up?
Drugs are not a question of only the individual -- when you think about it, nothing really is.
Ok. I appreciate your explaining your stance a little better, although i still have a couple questions for you.
(you)Well... "for the sole purpose of having a debate" is incomplete. And most people aren't going to appreciate the reasons why having a debate might be useful, so I'll stay quiet on that.
1. Am I grouped in this "most people" category that you speak of? If not, would you mind elaborating for me?
(you)what I'm against is a dominant paradigm that's inaccurate.
2. Could you tell me the "dominant paradigm" that your referring to? I don't think one was made by anyone in this conversation.
(you)There are secondary consequences to drugs. For example, heroin addicts are not known for their ability to function. Exceptions tend to decrease over time. So they become non-working members of society who still need supporting.
So the first part of the question is: if Lamp believes that the ONLY QUESTION of drug legalization is the individual taking the drug, I'm asking him how many heroin addicts he pays for, since they're going to have to get the money from somewhere.
The second part of the question is what I'm asking others: people who are on drugs (of varied kinds, including alcohol) become inactive. Who's going to pay for that, and would we rather that income go to positive things, like paying for college for a deserving kid who wants more out of life than being fjucked up?
3.... and yet again you confuse me. I don't see how this is relevant. Heroin is illegal mind you, so it sounds like the point your making with this first paragraph is to say that tax payers shouldn't fund programs for rehabilitation, or programs to help people with drug problems survive. (which I disagree with because i see it as a disease... while being self inflicted, it's still near impossable to stop by yourself. And i think people with those kinds of problems should be helped. Even if they were to institute a series of laws that would make all treatment funded by the government a loan that would that the government would at least attempt to collect on. But i am a "fag" liberal so i don't expect you to agree with that.)
But what does that have to do with legalization? I don't see how it applies since the "paying for treatment" situation would be the same with legal or illegal substances as it is for alcohol AND heroin. So where does the connection to this conversation come in?
Maybe i am fucking nuts, or maybe i really don't understand all the big words you seem to love using so frequently, but in these last couple posts i feel like you say things that only loosely have to do with what's being talked about, and even then not in any way that would really have any bearing on whatever debated issue is at hand.
[Jan 2,2009 11:25am - ouchdrummer ""]
...and oh yeah, I wouldn't really call the inability to function a "secondary consequence" of drugs... buts that's neither here nor there.
[Jan 2,2009 11:35am - ArilliusBM ""]
long post is long but good post is good
[Jan 2,2009 11:36am - ouchdrummer ""]
thanks. *winks*
[Jan 2,2009 11:37am - ouchdrummer ""]
Do you get what i am saying to Conservationist Jim? I just get so confused why he says certain things... actually most things he says.
[Jan 2,2009 11:38am - ouchdrummer ""]
Not that what he says doesn't make sense, more that it's just esoteric ENOUGH that it might make people think he's smart and insightful, but it's really just totally irrelevant.
[Jan 2,2009 11:46am - SkinSandwich ""]
Big words arez the scaryz
Everybody issss the smartsz in thsis threadz.
[img]
[Jan 2,2009 11:55am - ouchdrummer ""]
SkinSandwich said:Big words arez the scaryz
Everybody issss the smartsz in thsis threadz.
[img]
is that 6 times you have said that phrase in this thread? It's a great phrase, but worthy of a x6 post? I guess so.
[Jan 2,2009 11:55am - SkinSandwich ""]
Well, yes. it is patrick who has the IQ of a hockey puck.
[Jan 2,2009 11:56am - SkinSandwich ""]
Smokin' trees!! I hate that phrase.
[Jan 2,2009 11:59am - ouchdrummer ""]
who's Patrick?
[Jan 2,2009 12:02pm - SkinSandwich ""]
The starfish on Spongebob. Sorry, I have kids. But patrick is stupidly funny.
[Jan 2,2009 1:22pm - Conservationist ""]
ouchdrummer said:Not that what he says doesn't make sense, more that it's just esoteric ENOUGH that it might make people think he's smart and insightful, but it's really just totally irrelevant.
Get a debate judge in here, and flow our statements.
I think you'll find that much of what you see as "esoteric" has to do not with issues as described, but with the context and implications of the issues at hand.
It is not designed to be esoteric. Depending on your background in debate, philosophy, politics, law, etc. it may seem a little weird, but it parses quite well.
[Jan 2,2009 1:26pm - ouchdrummer ""]
prove it and show me how the three things i asked you about apply to the debate at hand. Because i AM trying to read into the implications of what your saying.. and the conclusions your bringing me to are confusing.
[Jan 2,2009 1:28pm - Conservationist ""]
ouchdrummer said:
1. Am I grouped in this "most people" category that you speak of? If not, would you mind elaborating for me?
(you)what I'm against is a dominant paradigm that's inaccurate.
2. Could you tell me the "dominant paradigm" that your referring to? I don't think one was made by anyone in this conversation.
(you)There are secondary consequences to drugs. For example, heroin addicts are not known for their ability to function. Exceptions tend to decrease over time. So they become non-working members of society who still need supporting.
(you)So the first part of the question is: if Lamp believes that the ONLY QUESTION of drug legalization is the individual taking the drug, I'm asking him how many heroin addicts he pays for, since they're going to have to get the money from somewhere.
(you)The second part of the question is what I'm asking others: people who are on drugs (of varied kinds, including alcohol) become inactive. Who's going to pay for that, and would we rather that income go to positive things, like paying for college for a deserving kid who wants more out of life than being fjucked up?
4.... and yet again you confuse me. I don't see how this is relevant. Heroin is illegal mind you, so it sounds like the point your making with this first paragraph is to say that tax payers shouldn't fund programs for rehabilitation, or programs to help people with drug problems survive. (which I disagree with because i see it as a disease... while being self inflicted, it's still near impossable to stop by yourself. And i think people with those kinds of problems should be helped. Even if they were to institute a series of laws that would make all treatment funded by the government a loan that would that the government would at least attempt to collect on. But i am a "fag" liberal so i don't expect you to agree with that.)
5 - But what does that have to do with legalization? I don't see how it applies since the "paying for treatment" situation would be the same with legal or illegal substances as it is for alcohol AND heroin. So where does the connection to this conversation come in?
6 - Maybe i am fucking nuts, or maybe i really don't understand all the big words you seem to love using so frequently, but in these last couple posts i feel like you say things that only loosely have to do with what's being talked about, and even then not in any way that would really have any bearing on whatever debated issue is at hand.
1. I don't know.
2. Any dominant paradigm that's inaccurate.
3. The point is that no question comes down to individual actions alone. Society is collective.
4. The point being made was: who takes care of secondary consequences?
5. The question of whether something should be legal: is it good for society? If people are taking drugs, and it's making them inert, and other people have to pay for them, that makes that society ridden with parasites.
In other words: how many heroin addicts would you pay for out of your paycheck alone? Someone has to pay for them. Who? And if the money could go to better things, why pay for them at all?
6. See other post. Implications are inherent.
7. I'm pro-legalization of all drugs with no age limit, sold at cost, as a eugenic measure. However, I thought Pires' statement was a useful one that isn't repeated enough.
[Jan 2,2009 1:30pm - Conservationist ""]
ouchdrummer said:prove it and show me how the three things i asked you about apply to the debate at hand. Because i AM trying to read into the implications of what your saying.. and the conclusions your bringing me to are confusing.
It just comes down to implications versus the idea of an object on its own having a justification. Legalizing drugs isn't a question of individuals, or of drugs, but the interaction of drugs, individuals and the collective, so we have to consider all implications.
It's the same way with any policy debate. I can state that killing serial killers will cost more money, but that's just a disadvantage. The question we're debating is whether killing serial killers will accomplish our objective, which in all cases is a healthier, more efficient, more productive society.
[Jan 2,2009 1:52pm - ouchdrummer ""]
wow, you are seriously perpetuating my thought that your "debate" skills have been skewed by years of some potent psychotropic hallucinogen. (i know, that's funny coming from me.)
But seriously...
my first question was asking you to elaborate on something that you said you WOULD elaborate on but most people wouldn't appreciate the reasons. I wanted you to humor me and explain anyways, and you said "i don't know"? So when you stated the "I'd explain but most people wouldn't appreciate my reasons" you were actually saying "I am totally full of shit, and have no real justification to back up what i am saying. So i will redirect and state some nonsense that most people won't even try to understand."
And AGAIN the heroin reference. If it happens with an ILLEGAL drug (heroin) AND a LEGAL drug (alcohol), and their legal status has NO effect on whether or not we pay for it, then what does it have to do with legalization?
[Jan 2,2009 1:52pm - ouchdrummer ""]
your nuts.
[Jan 2,2009 3:07pm - yummy ""]
It took me like two or tree daze to read dis.
[Jan 2,2009 3:19pm - ouchdrummer ""]
yummy said:It took me like two or tree daze to read dis.
did you read all of it?
[Jan 2,2009 3:25pm - yummy ""]
All encompassingly.
[Jan 2,2009 11:02pm - pam ""]
ouchdrummer said:that'd be great. I know she's talked to more than a couple people about it, and has filled out apps for cheaper insurance three times. I haven't been going through the process with her so i don't know which ones, but i know she said there are different apps for different programs. Whether or not they are state assisted, or state run programs i don't know, but ANY number you can provide would definitely help.
thank you.
Well in order to get Commonwealth Care, you must make under 300% of the federal poverty limit, which right now for a family of 3 is a little under 53,000 dollars a year. So I have no idea why they're denying this to her unless she's making good money, but obviously isn't if her kids are on Masshealth.
Here's all the info on the guidelines: http://www.massresources.org/pages.cfm?contentID=81&pageID=13&Subpages=yes
I did a bunch of googling and there's a few law firms tackling illegal denying of Commonwealth Care, if she's really eligible (I don't know the reason they're denying her) than she should sue them. But obviously only if she's being wrongfully denied and most law firms like this one http://www.healthlawadvocates.org/priority-areas?id=0013 will probably do a free consult to see if she is.
If she hasn't already went to her local community action center (let me know what town she's in I can look it up) she should go there, too. They'll have free advocates for her to talk to.
Basically she's got kids on Masshealth, obviously isn't rich, she should be getting commonwealth care.
[Jan 2,2009 11:08pm - Conservationist ""]
ouchdrummer said:my first question was asking you to elaborate on something that you said you WOULD elaborate on but most people wouldn't appreciate the reasons. I wanted you to humor me and explain anyways, and you said "i don't know"? So when you stated the "I'd explain but most people wouldn't appreciate my reasons" you were actually saying "I am totally full of shit, and have no real justification to back up what i am saying. So i will redirect and state some nonsense that most people won't even try to understand."
And AGAIN the heroin reference. If it happens with an ILLEGAL drug (heroin) AND a LEGAL drug (alcohol), and their legal status has NO effect on whether or not we pay for it, then what does it have to do with legalization?
You question my debate skills. What are yours?
First, there was no redirection. Saying "I don't know" is honest.
Second, all drugs are subject to the legalization debate. Alcohol has been criminalized. The question isn't their current status, but should they be legal.
[Jan 2,2009 11:22pm - SkinSandwich ""]
Conservationist said:
ouchdrummer said:my first question was asking you to elaborate on something that you said you WOULD elaborate on but most people wouldn't appreciate the reasons. I wanted you to humor me and explain anyways, and you said "i don't know"? So when you stated the "I'd explain but most people wouldn't appreciate my reasons" you were actually saying "I am totally full of shit, and have no real justification to back up what i am saying. So i will redirect and state some nonsense that most people won't even try to understand."
And AGAIN the heroin reference. If it happens with an ILLEGAL drug (heroin) AND a LEGAL drug (alcohol), and their legal status has NO effect on whether or not we pay for it, then what does it have to do with legalization?
You question my debate skills. What are yours?
First, there was no redirection. Saying "I don't know" is honest.
Second, all drugs are subject to the legalization debate. Alcohol has been criminalized. The question isn't their current status, but should they be legal.
You want to tangle chump? Flagpole, three o'clock. be there.
[Jan 2,2009 11:35pm - Conservationist ""]
SkinSandwich said:
Conservationist said:
ouchdrummer said:my first question was asking you to elaborate on something that you said you WOULD elaborate on but most people wouldn't appreciate the reasons. I wanted you to humor me and explain anyways, and you said "i don't know"? So when you stated the "I'd explain but most people wouldn't appreciate my reasons" you were actually saying "I am totally full of shit, and have no real justification to back up what i am saying. So i will redirect and state some nonsense that most people won't even try to understand."
And AGAIN the heroin reference. If it happens with an ILLEGAL drug (heroin) AND a LEGAL drug (alcohol), and their legal status has NO effect on whether or not we pay for it, then what does it have to do with legalization?
You question my debate skills. What are yours?
First, there was no redirection. Saying "I don't know" is honest.
Second, all drugs are subject to the legalization debate. Alcohol has been criminalized. The question isn't their current status, but should they be legal.
You want to tangle chump? Flagpole, three o'clock. be there.
Show up or you're a Macintosh user.
[Jan 3,2009 12:05am - xanonymousx ""]
the cops were on tv saying how bad this was.
[Jan 3,2009 12:17am - Conservationist ""]
The truth of it is --
Most people suck.
I don't want them using drugs on my dime, because they'll fuck it up and cause fucking problems.
I have no problem with frontier zones where drugs are legal. Go there and buy. You get ripped off, or anally raped, well, it's not our jurisdiction and not our problem.
Yes, destroy all drug treatment programs. They don't work. Send drug addicts to the drug zone. Let nature sort out the winners from the losers.
7 billion people, and most of them too clueless to contribute anything. Fuck these people. They're obsolete.
[Jan 3,2009 8:40am - Conservationist ""]
Half-baked policy yields:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus...k_at_ticketing_marijuana_offenders/
[Jan 3,2009 9:08am - FuckIsMySignature ""]
"If the Legislature enacts some changes, we'll be happy to do it in the future, but as it stands now we're not going to be issuing civil citations," he said. If an officer spots someone smoking marijuana, he said, "We will confiscate it and the person will be sent on their way."
[Jan 3,2009 9:28am - josh_hates_you ""]
this is the part that i find most interesting..........
More fundamentally, they complain that officers have no way of determining the identity of people they stop on the street for smoking marijuana. Before the law was changed, officers could arrest them, or threaten them with arrest to force them to show identification. Now, they say they cannot force users to show IDs, and cannot arrest them if they refuse to identify themselves. And they say there is no penalty if a marijuana user gives a false name to a police officer.
So i can walk around smoking weed all day long and if a cop stops me to write a ticket I can just tell them my name is john johnson and to fuck off?
[Jan 3,2009 9:29am - FuckIsMySignature ""]
apparently. this article put me in a terrific mood.
[Jan 3,2009 10:04am - Conservationist ""]
josh_hates_you said:So i can walk around smoking weed all day long and if a cop stops me to write a ticket I can just tell them my name is john johnson and to fuck off?
Yes. Or more precisely: you can tell them your name is John Johnson.
Telling cops to fuck off is asking for trouble.
[Jan 3,2009 10:45am - xanonymousx ""]
Drug rehab programs only work if after the rehab, the person goes into a more sable environment, not back where they came from around all of the drugs, i know and recenltly had a death in the family because of an overdose to heroin. he got out of jail, but went back to the same place, found some drugs and now he is no longer here god bless his soul, but this is not about heroin its about weed which is a completely different drug
[Jan 3,2009 10:49am - pam ""]
xanonymousx said:Drug rehab programs only work if after the rehab, the person goes into a more sable environment, not back where they came from around all of the drugs, i know and recenltly had a death in the family because of an overdose to heroin. he got out of jail, but went back to the same place, found some drugs and now he is no longer here god bless his soul, but this is not about heroin its about weed which is a completely different drug
All too familiar with this truth.