jcu27 said:
You made my point... its the law wether you agree with it or not...
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Really happy the Griz did not get the Thomas's
- Thread starter Paytonlives
- Start date
You made my point... its the law wether you agree with it or not...
rotesst: You're silly!
WyomingGrizFan
Well-known member
jcu27 said:
Reminds me of what is referred to as the "Platonic Touchstone" that is revealed in the Dialogue: "The Laws." In that case, wine, alcohol, etc., in one's cups, so to speak, and attendant items similar that many subsequent so-called religions since have placed under a ban because they have yet to acknowledge that moral quality of the Will is self acquired. Even The Church has finally acknowledged that morality is injured if dependant upon God; even after The Academy was closed down by a Justinian under the onslaught of so-called Christian propaganda way back when. Granted, The State has the right to defend itself, and along with that is the fact that 'Law' has no sovereignty over "True Knowledge." If, for no other reason, if The Church considered such an item as a Sacrament, along with their seven others, what then? Would it be that much different than the Incas utilizing cocaine leaves intelligently and religiously while the drug cartels of Cuidad Juarez are no better than those that have murdered over 100,000 indigenous Nauhua over the past forty years in meso-America? A misdirected correlation if nothing else to assume a drug-crazed city as evidence to generalize upon.
The remaining constant evidently is 'need,', as one can interpret the North America penchant about the authorities' viewpoint upon such an item; as if in the same frame of reference as food is a need to a starving belly. If not needed as a food, then but a recreational substance and all else is but a scurrilous association; as they say, .."spectral evidence is not admissible in a court of Law." But do you really think that if, for instance, over the past one hundred and fifty years or so, that if all the political States that have been since, including all of the European as well regardless, actually had an access to those that knew how to 'learn how to learn,' unto honourable soldiery and principled Statesmenship, that you would have suffered the deaths of over one hundred and fifty millions of your peoples on this Earth hence? Caught up in a quagmire in the Levant that is becoming impossible to extradite yourselves from?..even economically speaking?
Different vocations have different fields of study. As long as civil liberties are recognized, what then? What is your take on an Eighth Sacrament as long as all others' never witness the partaking by an inidivdual of such a substance, never in public I must say nor an endangerment to others; 'as if' one was alone in a darkened chamber and not let out until he related why twelve is the number of the universe? As the Delphic Oracle once stated, by Simonides' account,.."The Gods do not content against necessity."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With that, I wouldn't legalize it, as such; but I would decriminalize it with plenty of provisional qualification. Quite evidently, there are many persons that just can't handle alcohol at any time in their lives...god knows why; no need to make it even worse by compounding the problem, at least, at present. But I'd still have to admit that there are ways of utilizing such a substance in an educated fashion wherein it is not just a victimless crime, not a crime at all, really, considering the evidence of political science during the past two thousand years or so, and the fact that 'Law' is delivered under complusion and not persuasion; and that the competency of 'The State' does not exist in the here after.
grizhunter
Well-known member
I feel warm inside.
HighLineGRIZ
Well-known member
jcu27 said:
Nope. Personal experience. It was worst I've ever felt in my life and that was with the right amount of pot in them. My pothead friend at the time handled them ok, but for a novice like me and my other friend, it made us so high that we had lost control of ourselves. I was sick for days after. Can't tell me that it wasn't damaging, because it was.
Thomas didn't know what he was doing and confessed that he put more weed in the brownies than you're suppose to. Couple that with giving those to teenagers that have little built up tolerance and you have yourself a dangerous situation. I can imagine those kids were extremely miserable and were having a hard trip. Hopefully it turns them off of it, like it did me.
ALPHAGRIZ1
Well-known member
jcu27 said:
"Marijuana was illegalized over ignorance" :?
Dude, when something is illegal it is wrong, pull your mouth off the bong long enough to have a lucid moment in the real world.
You dont need to tell most people that marijuana is safer than alcohol, the numbers back it up. Sure it should be legal and taxed but thats not going to happen when big corporations (DuPont) basically run this country.
Sit down, roll a fat one and for the sake of everyone involved STFU about this subject your giving potheads a bad name.
jcu27
Well-known member
Marijuana was illegalized because it was believed it made blacks and mexicans crazy and newspaper companies didn't want to compete against hemp aka IGNORANCE. Look it up pal. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. And just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong. In a county in Alabama it's illegal to have a single wide mobile home. OMG THAT IS SOOOO WRONG! Lol get over yourself and don't try to act like Mr. Neverdoesanythingwrong, isn't it correct that you drink and drive and think it's ok? And how am I giving potheads a bad name....?
jcu27
Well-known member
For all you know all those kids could have been regular users. How old were you when you had whatever you ate? I know when I was younger marijuana effected me a lot differently, it was a lot stronger and did have some bad effects at time, but I think that was just do to my brain developing and that messing with me more(and I know it's not because I have gotten use to it because at a point in time I stopped for almost a year). Just like when you are younger you can't handle nearly as much alcohol as you can when you are older(atleast for the majority)
ALPHAGRIZ1
Well-known member
jcu27 said:
By using the word illegalized.........for starters.
BTW I dont need a history lesson from you. I can already tell that would be funny but detrimental to any advancement of intellect.
"DuPont's involvement in the anti-hemp campaign can also be explained with great ease. At this time, DuPont was patenting a new sulfuric acid process for producing wood-pulp paper. According to the company's own records, wood-pulp products ultimately accounted for more than 80% of all DuPont's railroad car loadings for the 50 years the Marijuana Tax Act was passed. Two years before the prohibitive hemp tax in 1937, DuPont developed nylon which was a substitute for hemp rope. The year after the tax was passed DuPont came out with rayon, which would have been unable to compete with the strength of hemp fiber. DuPont's point man was Harry Anslinger, who was appointed to the FBN by Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, who was also chairman of the Mellon Bank. Anslinger's relationship to Mellon wasn't just political, he was also married to Mellon's niece. The reasoning behind DuPont, Anslinger, and Hearst was not for any moral or health related issues. They fought to prevent the growth of this new industry so they wouldn't lose money."
http://www.uri.edu/personal/atro6990/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I can also tell that your reading comprehension is at an all time low, I challenge you to provide ONE post made by me saying its OK to drink and drive. I have merely pointed out the hypocrisy and tax advantages of going after a very arbitrary "LEGAL" activity for monetary gain.
You do fit in on this site quite nicely because your partially illiterate, not very well spoken and smell like stale beer, but please quit misrepresenting my posts intent on certain subjects.
That action alone should be "illegalized"............or at least disqualificated.
jcu27
Well-known member
Maybe you didn't say it was ok to drink and drive, but you sure as hell act like it is. It's funny how you like to believe you know everything about people and who they are. First off I don't drink anymore so I can't smell like stale beer, it's kind of weird that you know that about people on here. I'm partially illiterate? I can read and write perfectly fine. Just because I don't waste time trying to get everything correct about my posts, I just try to get it over with as soon as possible. You also proved my point about companies not wanting hemp to be legal. How did I misrepresent your post? You still have yet to answer how I make "potheads" look bad. It's also funny how everyone thinks stoners are lazy on here, what the fuck kind of stoners do you know? Or are you watching too many movies? I don't know one stoner who just sits at home and does nothing...Not one..
mtgrizrule
Well-known member
Montanan said:Hammer said:
think we all knew a Spicoli (or two), even if we didn't attend Ridgemont High.
Most every class has a Spicoli, or a few in it.
