4/20

[Guest stvbreal]

I'm trying to bring some comic relief to th siutation is all. I live not even an hour from CU.

 

 

Here's the article:

 

Tokers rally, police water

Farrand Field sprinklers fail to stop annual event

 

By Elizabeth Mattern Clark and Brittany Anas, Camera Staff Writers

April 21, 2005

 

Masses huddled shoulder to shoulder on Farrand Field, erupting into cheers every time someone sacrificed dry clothing to run into a police-activated sprinkler and squash it with a shoe.

 

"All it takes to be a hero today is to stand on a sprinkler head," said University of Colorado senior Matt Angiono.

 

 

Determined to celebrate the annual "4/20" pot-smoking holiday despite word of a university crackdown, more than 1,000 people Wednesday packed the field in the center of the CU campus.

 

The growing crowd moved from spot to spot throughout the afternoon to try to avoid police — and their sprinkler tactics.

 

"I think they're playing dirty," said CU freshman Tyler Decker.

 

The event culminated in a giant smokeout at 4:20 p.m. at Farrand Field.

 

"Three. Two. One. Cheers!" said Johan Haukeness at the tick of 4:20 p.m., according to someone's watch, as he lifted his joint in a toast with friends. Smoke, Frisbees and the sound of simultaneous coughs over the beat of 1970s music filled the air.

 

The event ended without any drug arrests or tickets, like the five previous April 20 gatherings at CU.

 

A few peddled "4/20" T-shirts or green "Live Stoned" bracelets, and Jimmy John's distributed free mini-submarine sandwiches. Some people in the crowd just observed, but most took puffs from pipes or joints to protest drug laws in the annual celebration that's said to have grown from a northern California pot-smoking tradition at 4:20 p.m.

 

Haukeness, a University of Northern Colorado student who wore a T-shirt that said, "I was high when I made this," said April 20 is his "one day a year to smoke in public."

 

Just minutes after the clock hit 4:20, a colorful glass pipe was passed to Sam Burkett, a former CU student and Boulder resident. He took a long hit from it and said "yummy!" after swallowing the smoke.

 

"We're all here to get stoned and meet other pot smokers," Burkett said.

 

CU police technically closed Farrand Field at 3 p.m., posting signs, handing out warnings and turning on the field's sprinklers to disperse early, smaller crowds. A first set of signs went missing, but officials posted new ones shortly before 3 p.m.

 

Many of the revelers then went to a pro-marijuana rally in front of the Coors Events Center, where police quietly took pictures and video and again "rained out" the crowd with sprinklers.

 

"We call that our sprinkler strategy," said CU spokeswoman Pauline Hale.

 

By 4:20 p.m., though, the crowd stormed Farrand Field, and the arcs of water didn't disperse the gathering this time. The masses were growing so large that police simply monitored, without intervening.

 

"There are about 400 people on the field and 10 of us," said Lt. Michell Irving, as people began to leave because of rain, mud and sprinkler-flooded grass. "So we would rather people just leave. We don't want to escalate this."

 

At least two students will be sent through the school's judicial affairs process for alleged drug infractions, Irving said. Others could be ticketed if police identify illegal behavior in their pictures and video.

 

CU junior Dane McGill said he wasn't concerned about getting in trouble with police. He puffed on a clove cigarette, saying he would wait until exactly 4:20, and trade it out for marijuana.

 

"Honestly, I feel like an ant in this huge colony," McGill said.

 

Senior Paul Brewer stopped by Farrand Field on his way to class and took it upon himself to stifle a sprinkler with his mountain bike to save nearby people from being soaked.

 

"I don't understand why they're trying to stop it," he said. "People are more civilized here than at a CU football game when they're drinking."

 

CU freshman Mike Stearn said that if the crowd was drinking instead of smoking, "people probably would have tried to fight the cops."

 

"Instead, everything was pretty peaceful today," Stearn said, acknowledging that the sprinkler strategy was "pretty clever."

 

"At least it's not tear gas," he said.

 

School officials announced last month that they were trying to discourage the non-sanctioned pot rally, partly because of image problems already plaguing CU. The university, named the Princeton Review's top party school in 2003, has been the subject of scandals involving allegations of sex and booze for football recruits and the alcohol-poisoning death of a freshman last fall.

 

Although the attempts at snuffing out the pot event didn't keep crowds away, the gathering was relatively short. By the time hail fell at 5 p.m., the celebration was over.

 

"I think they wanted it to be peaceful, and it was," said CU spokeswoman Jeannine Malmsbury.

 

CU students passed a resolution last week asking the school to lighten up on marijuana penalties, following a push by a group that says pot is less dangerous than alcohol. CU officials say they already treat alcohol and marijuana offenses equally and will not be making policy changes.

 

Students rallying outside the Coors Event Center at 3 p.m. held pro-marijuana signs, including one that read: "Coors kills, pot does not."

 

Rally organizer Mason Tvert, director of the student initiative, said he wants the university to revise school sanctions for students who are busted using marijuana.

 

"The university is fully able to remove its university penalties, such as suspension for students, and allow the law to take its course," Tvert said. "Alcohol is killing people on this campus and the university is unwilling to change its policy and is continuing to drive its students to drink."

 

CU sophomore Jason Garcia said he was busted smoking weed in the Williams Village complex the first day of his freshman year. Among the penalties, university officials sent a letter home to his parents and he was sentenced to community service, he said.

 

Garcia held a sign at the rally that said: "Farrand closed but the bar's still open."

 

"We want to make sure the university knows that marijuana is a safer alternative to alcohol," Garcia said.

[Guest stvbreal]

Honestly Pot isn't the issue on CU campus, drinking is. Drinking has killed a number of kids at that school. Has weed?

[Jimmy Notchback]

I own a crystal meth lab in Iowa.

[Casper]

garrett: if you take the stance that what is illegal should never be done, then you're a big fucking hypocrit. no? every arguement you've faced so far in this thread you've come back saying it is a different situation. well you're wrong. illegal is illegal, according to you. therefore you're just as guilty as people who smoke pot for speeding, spitting, etc. you yourself said speeding is fun and you've gotten tickets. have you ever been pulled over and been given a warning? well according to your bitching, that's wrong and your tax money shouldn't allow that to happen. you're a bitch. no doubt about it. you want the world your way and only your way. i'm not a democrat. and republicans are all secretly gay (this was just for jon). i'm a libertarian. i believe in the rights and values our country was based upon. you have your opinion, which you have poorly expressed. and, i have my opinion. are you wrong or am i? neither. we're both entitled to our opinions and views. however, hypocricy is wrong no matter how you look at it. if you want to bitch saying something is illegal therefore shouldn't be allowed, don't speed. don't do anything illegal. there is no difference. illegal is illegal. if you want to preach about being a good, law-abiding citizen then be one. you're about as worthless as the judges who sentence people to jail for duis, then they themselves go out drinking & driving and get off. please, save all of us the time and headache. don't post anymore.

[Buck531]

http://thelittlebaby.dhs.org/kenny/sweet/piss-thread.jpg

[Brandon]

"dude pass that shit"

[Guest CTPirate]

Coke, you should come over and toke it up! Lol

 

Man, Folkvang, I am such your complete opposite! I smoke weed, I'm pro-choice, I'm agnostic, and I voted for Kerry! Damn, looks like I'm going to hell and back!

 

Here's my stance, and forgive me if I repeat things that people have said, I got tired of reading.

 

The effects of alchol are much worse than weed. People get drnuk and some of them hurt people. They often kill themselves becuase of some stupid act they commited while intoxicated. Yea, weed makes you lazy, but there are are a couple positives about that: You're less likely to hurt yourself or someone else. And you'll RELAX. Sometime relaxation is needed in this world of stress. Yes, there are other (legal) forms of stress reducers, but oh well. IMHO, pot should be leagal for the VARY reason that alochol is legal. If pot were legal it should be treated EXACTLY like alcohol becuase it's effects are very similar.

 

And earlier, you stated thazt speeding, while illegal will not have the same effect of smoking pot. "And I don't think speeding has ever been reported to cloud someone's judgment, impair their vision, damage their lungs" - Sure, not just by doing it. But what happens when you wreck? What happens if you kill yourself becuase you were speeding, or worse, you're crippled forever. Speeding is just as "dangerous" as pot. Even more so, in my opinion. It's the same god damn thing on a low level. You do it becuase it give you a HIGH. That's what fun is: A HIGH. Most of the time it's natural. Pot gives you a way to be high if there's nothing to do to get it from fun.

 

Also, I'm with Coke on this. I'm doing good in HS, I'm already enrolled at DeVry University, I live on my own, pay my own bills and what not, AND I toke it up every once in a while. That doesn't mean I'm a lazy fuck who does nothing.

 

Lastly, I remember you saying that as punishment of smoking pot you should start taking things away from people. Yes, lets take away their car so they ahjve a lot of trouble getting to work. Let's take away their house so that we can add even MORE to the over-abundant amoutn of homeless out there. Your method of justice is not only non-constructive (almost destructive) it's ignorant.

 

You say the ideals of the US of A and human life in general is to find happieness. Well, news flash: SOME people are happy with minimal things. Not everyone needs a good job, a g/f, and a big house to be happy. Just becuase YOU think it's wrong, doesn't mean it is. There are bigger problems then people toking it up every once in a while. You have so much energy towards this, where it could be diverted towards something more constructive.

 

By punishing people who smoke pot, you're only cutting off the head of the weed. You need to get to the root which is natural lazyness and ignorance. Focus your energy towayrd getting rid of that, then there won't be a problem with people toking it up as a past time.

 

HAving said all that, I think I'm going to go take a couple hits off the ol' blunt. G'day. smile.gif

[Guest Crankshaft]

<font color ="midnightblue"> Alright, well, I just woke up and I have class, so it'll be later this afternoon when I can address these 'new' issues you've presented. Casey, you've made some good points. Congrats.

 

Satan? You've just taken one aspect of my argument and made it account for your entire position against me. Well, as I said in a previous post, morality and legality are sometimes different things, and the morality of smoking weed and of speeding are two very different things. No, I'm not a hypocrite, I'm just not perfect. It's possible there's a difference, as hard as it might be for your little myopic mind to wrap itself around. I've poorly expressed my opinion? As opposed to what, you? Should I have sworn more, cursed and insulted you more? Belittled your position and told you to stop posting? No, I've defended my position fine. You just don't like it. Tough.

 

 

Be back this afternoon.

[Guest Rane]

Bone Thugs>Folkvang

 

There is also a difference between a pot head and someone who smokes sometimes.

 

As far as speeding goes. Its worse to drive 150mph then it is to smoke...150mph is endangering you and everyone else on the road. Smoking is endangering yourself. Or maybe not because you think otherwise?!?! I do both, I rarely ever smoke though sept when I just reaaally need to get my mind off shit. And in no way shape or form would I smoke then drive or smoke then do something that I could fuck up on and hurt someone else.

[Dr. Pomade]

I haven't read more than 20 words Folkvang has said and I'd bet he's presented himself more intelligently and eloquently in this thread than has 90 percent of CR in the entire history of the site. Give the kid some credit, even if it's for having the balls and perseverence to keep coming back with retorts.

 

When I have an hour or two, I may read this thread in its entirety. Until then, I have nothing more to say on this. Bye bye.

[Guest Crankshaft]

<font color ="midnightblue">

Well, I guess we’ll start with the top and work down.

 

Lucifer- I think I’ve adequately, though summarily, addressed your concerns with my last post. If you disagree, by all means, bring it to my attention and we’ll discuss it further.

 

Casey-

I think we need to establish a distinction between immediacy and eventuality. These are represented in the immediate effects of alcohol, based, of course, upon the volume consumed. We know the immediate effects, which largely act as inhibitors of higher brain functions, and can, depending on the person, result in aggression and violence if circumstances permit. The eventual effects are much less, generally summed up by headaches and fatigue related symptoms. However, that is the extent, and rarely do the effects, except in extenuated circumstances, endure for more than 24 hours (i.e., you get drunk Saturday night, it is not likely you will still be 'drunk' Sunday night; if you believe this false, reflect on the importance it has in relevance to my argument).

 

Now marijuana, on the other hand, has considerable effects both in the categories of immediacy and eventuality. Immediate results—those within one to two minutes—are the common 'buzz' or 'high' feelings of euphoria or contentment. However, even as the ‘buzz’ fades after two to three hours, other effects, including bradycardia, orthostatic hypertension, decreased muscle strength and a gradual buildup of psychotomimetic effects endure, none of which are present or persistent when the use of alcohol is considered.

 

Medical terms aside, this simply means that harmful effects from the use of THC extend far beyond the initial ‘high’, creating a much more negative eventuality than alcohol. Inhibition of lymphocyte blastogenesis and immune system instability alone are enough to suggest that any kind of ‘recreational’ use of marijuana is seriously detrimental to your health, much more so than ‘social’ drinking. Studies in which mice have been given comparatively similar doses of THC and then introduced to various common bacteria displayed significant immunological deficiencies and susceptibility to sickness. Though research in this area is fairly limited in availability, the findings are evidence enough that, from any reasonable moral standpoint, it is rational to assume that knowingly inhibiting your body from performing its functions and impairing its ability to fight off disease, thereby damaging yourself, is not justifiable for the sake of ‘recreation’.

 

Furthermore, when cell metabolism is considered, it becomes apparent that mitotic abnormalities (those relating the functions of cell-division) were increased 10 to 25% over what is normally expected. Malignant transformations were observed in lung cell cultures, leading to the conclusion that premalignant and malignant lesions are to be expected after inhalation of marijuana (though not immediately, what excuse can there be for engaging in an activity with these kinds of eventualities?). Certainly, the same can be said for cigarette smokers, but then again, I have not claimed it is morally acceptable to smoke cigarettes, either.

 

Many would argue that marijuana is preferable to the use of alcohol, citing decreased violence as a viable excuse. This would seem to imply that a state of apathetic docility and passivity and decreased brain functions are valid grounds to promote use over something incurring external effects of detriment. The support for this would lie in the idea that those who use weed aren’t hurting anyone, and those who use alcohol might. I submit that the internal effects of THC are harmful enough to the individual to negate the claim that one is preferable over the other. Certainly, we allow more leniencies for those who consume alcohol, and for their ability to do so; this does not mean we should. Both create negative eventualities, though that of cannabis is more harmful in concern with personal and mental health. I reiterate that personal health is as much a concern as the well-being of those around you, and should you neglect your own health by the consumption of a negative substance, though it may only affect you, you are not on any sort of ground to denounce the viability of consumption of another drug’s harmful effects.

 

Your second point, Casey, is inherently invalid, though not upon initial inspection. While smoking marijuana inevitably always leads to the above circumstances I have just cited, speeding, though dangerous, does not always, or even frequently lead to the end result of a wreck. This, however, is not a reasonable excuse to speed, especially not in places where the risk of injury to others is possible.

 

Your third point I have dealt with in my discussion with Ben, and can be summarized with the old adage of, “exceptions to every rule to not make new rules”.

 

Your fourth point can easily be dismissed on the grounds that it was not ignorance or “deconstructive” processes of thought that brought me to the suggestion that people who smoke pot should have their property confiscated. I am fully aware of the consequences of this for the people it would affect. However, as I stated earlier, the knowledge that marijuana is illegal is not a concept that they were not aware of. Thus, the consequences for their actions, whatever they may be, are justifiable on the grounds of acceptance of potential responsibility. They knew what might happen, and they proceeded to engage in the activity they knew might bring about those undesirable repercussions.

 

Being happy with minimal possessions is fantastic; I applaud the monks who are able to undertake this lifestyle. However, in regards to those who smoke weed, I highly doubt that they are of any disposition which would incite them to renounce worldly values and take up lives of poverty, or in your instance, minimalism. The very idea of a person finding it necessary to smoke pot indicates a thought process not in line with minimalism, as smoking pot is not a necessary function for survival; this, in turn, ascribes the value to those who smoke pot of people who are taken with worldly possessions, and not likely to be predisposed to genuine articles of spirituality and Spartan-like behavior. Perhaps you would cite the incidences of many during the 60’s and 70’s who retreated to communes where they could separate themselves from the capitalistic world they were surrounded by. I refute this by saying that this is not a given attribute of pot, pot smoking, or any sort of inherent philosophy of pot; it was instigated by Marxist, revolutionary beliefs which were, at the time, quite prevalent in the United States. They were in no way, however, causal of smoking pot, and cannot be used to justify a minimalist lifestyle with the only luxury being marijuana.

 

To further refute this, we might perhaps look at Immanuel Kant’s theory of universalizability; this proposes that you cannot be within your moral boundaries to do a thing if you could not then agree that anyone or everyone could do such a thing. So, if you think it possible for a person to retreat to the woods or a commune and smoke marijuana all the time, pursuing this minimalist, separatist ideology, then you must also consent to the possibility that anyone or everyone who wanted to could do this as well. And, if this were possible, what kind of society would we live in? It would be akin to anarchy, with no municipal functions of social order being fulfilled; for who would want to work when they would be within their rights to not work and smoke pot all day, no immediate penalties incurred? If you think this latter assessment is incorrect, then you must still admit that this lifestyle is not an acceptable option if for no other reason than it does nothing to further the society in which we live or increase the well-being of those around us. Though this would perhaps remove roughly 30 to 40% of the population of college campuses across the US to live in such communes, we still cannot be morally upright to say that it is permissible to allow college students, whose faculties, maturity, and grasp of what is important in life are not fully developed (one might argue that it is presumptuous to assume that this ‘hippy’ lifestyle is not valid, but again I say that it is not valid for one if it is not valid for all) to seemingly throw away their lives to the passing whim of their enjoyment of marijuana.

 

I also agree with you that by attacking marijuana, we are simply striking off but one head of a multi-headed dragon. We must get to the body of the dragon, the real cause of the issue. That said, however, we must concede that it is not possible to tackle all sides of an issue at once. If all you can treat, at any single given time are the symptoms, then so be it. I think you will find, as have most people in governmental positions in the past, that it is far easier to begin to affect more distinct problems, such as smoking pot, than it is to, as you have suggested, begin with the little task of simply eliminating ‘laziness and ignorance’. However, if you have a ready solution to these problems, by all means, I’d love to hear it.

 

And Rane, your comment was addressed above; though, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like your reasoning behind "Bone Thugs > Folkvang". I guess if you want to shirk all responsibilities and exist solely for the purpose of having a good time, then yes, you would be correct in stating that they are preferable to me.

 

Beyond that, I hope I've managed to adequately defend my position, as some of you have declared I have not. I challenge those who maintain that position to defend it, as I do not think it is possible.

 

It’s Friday night. I have reading to do. I’m gonna be here for a while, so I welcome any further discussion.

[Guest stvbreal]

Good god man. Must this go on? You are indeed the master of retort. I must bow and go take another shot. All together now ! ! My sister is playing Shania Twain. In all honesty I'd hit it but to hell wit the music. aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! Not my sister you backwoods Grovetuckey perves, Shania Twain.

[Guest stvbreal]

Originally posted by Dr. Z06:

I haven't read more than 20 words Folkvang has said and I'd bet he's presented himself more intelligently and eloquently in this thread than has 90 percent of CR in the entire history of the site. Give the kid some credit, even if it's for having the balls and perseverence to keep coming back with retorts.

 

When I have an hour or two, I may read this thread in its entirety. Until then, I have nothing more to say on this. Bye bye.

An hour to read this thread? Jesus bro. You huffin glue or what? Doesn't take much to figure out what he's saying. Society = Blue eyed Blond Haired Hitler Youth. Pot Smokers Must Die ! ! !

[Guest CTPirate]

Dude, Folkvang, I'm sorry, but I'm to uninterested in what you have to say I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post. Honestly I dopn't give a fuck if you think it's wrong. I'm still going to do it. In fact a couple of my friends are going to come over tonight and we're going to light up a hooka and get stoned. And it's going to be great. Sorry you have to miss out

[Guest Crankshaft]

Originally posted by EvilEvo:

An hour to read this thread? Jesus bro. You huffin glue or what? Doesn't take much to figure out what he's saying. Society = Blue eyed Blond Haired Hitler Youth. Pot Smokers Must Die ! ! !

<font color ="midnightblue"> Again with the nazis- where are you getting this?? Why do you equate morality and ethics with nazism?

 

And Casey- that's sad. No, it's pathetic; you won't even make an attempt to discover whether or not you may, in fact, be wrong. You don't care, nor, it seems, does anyone else. Pleasure is the highest master and all else, including reason, must take a back seat when this is concerned.

 

This furthers my previous position about the corollary effects between smoking pot and apathy, and seems particularly striking in consideration of that. One does not imply the other, necessarily, but they do seem to go hand in hand. And dammit, if you take exception to that then read my previous posts.

 

Casey, if you're not even going to take the time to defend your position, then I propose you need to seriously reevaluate it.

[Guest stvbreal]

I'm all for it. Kill the weak and the strong shall prevail. I kid not. I may smoke the bud but I'll be damned if I am going to be chastised to the common weak. I will reign and stomp on thine enemy.

[Crash1647545504]

Originally posted by Folkvang:

 

And Casey- that's sad. No, it's pathetic; you won't even make an attempt to discover whether or not you may, in fact, be wrong. You don't care, nor, it seems, does anyone else. Pleasure is the highest master and all else, including reason, must take a back seat when this is concerned.

 

If you set legality aside, it comes down to two different cultures. After so much religious debate, even the most zealous of Christians would get tired defending their veiwpoints, as Casey does not wish to defend his, eventhough he hasn't offered much of an argument. That does not mean he must reevaluate his position.

 

I'm not saying you havn't deffended your position well, because you have, as I feel I've deffended mine. This thread has gone as far as its going to go. It's two differnt cultural identities arguing back and forth about their moral values, which are left and right wing. Nothing from this thread is dialog, because no one is going to take your facts and learn from them, is a lose-lose discusion.

[Guest Crankshaft]

Originally posted by EvilEvo:

I'm all for it. Kill the weak and the strong shall prevail. I kid not. I may smoke the bud but I'll be damned if I am going to be chastised to the common weak. I will reign and stomp on thine enemy.

<font color ="midnightblue"> What you're talking about is social darwinism- which I support. The weak naturally encumber societies which are invariably governed by the strong. But this is an entirely different subject from the social quandary of apathy and pot smoking. Furthermore, social darwinism is different from taking an active role in exterminating people through dastardly and torturous processes such as gas chambers and medical experimentation laboritories. Allowing the strong to survive and permitting the weak to die is one thing; genocide is another. Perhaps you should be more specific.

[Crash1647545504]

P.S. Can we get a vote for thread with highest word count, in the history of CR?

[Guest Rane]

I smoked like 4 times in my entire life. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we are worthless.

 

Also, I think the people who sit around and smoke all day everyday are fucking lames too. They never do ANYTHING besides smoke there the pot head stoners that you need to worry about not me. Everything I have said before this post was just to make you mad.

[Guest Crankshaft]

<font color ="midnightblue">

Ben: yes, it does come down to two different cultures. What’s your point? That they simply coincide, without contesting the other’s viewpoint? That they live in harmony and love? Well, even in a democracy (especially in a democracy), that’s not really possible. Because we have the right to voice our opinions and espouse our beliefs, and because we realize that the government is governed by the people, we must stand up for what we believe in, and denounce that which we see as harmful to our country and our way of life. So, because I see the apathy of the youth and the degeneration of this culture’s morals and values as a significant threat to my country, its founding values, and its citizens way of prospective life, then I reject your proposal of successful integration of a heterogeneously conglomerate of ideologies, and declare that for unification of a country, the country must be unified, and such a thing cannot exist when the nation’s citizens are of a disposition akin to indifference. And, after one extensive bout of debate yes, anyone would need a break to recover and regain their faculties. However, Casey has put forth such minimal effort at proving his right to act in a legally and morally reprehensible manner that I do not think, but his sheer ease of his surrender, he should be permitted to continue such activities.

 

You have no rights that you are not willing to fight for, whether they are granted unceremoniously to you by your country or not. What you are not willing to fight for, you are not deserving of. So yes, I say he must reevaluate his position, or relinquish it. Christians would have been long forgotten to the hungry jaws of lions and the indignant whims of Roman legates if they had caved on their positions so easily. It was staunch fervor in their ideals that allowed the tradition to persevere, and had they not possessed such strength of character, then I would condemn them as not being worthy to pass on their beliefs. I hold the same standard true for anyone who claims any sort of personal convictions. And I certainly do not think that you can make the excuse for anyone that, since they are too lazy or uninspired to defend their position on a matter—so uninspired, in fact, that they even forgo the courtesy of acknowledging their opponents views insomuch as they take them into reasonable consideration—that they are within their rights to simply sit back, light one up, and leave the hard thinking to someone else. That is totally unacceptable as grounds for permitting impermissible behavior. Defend your freedoms, or surrender them. That is the law of the world, and it will never change.

 

Originally posted by Rane:

Also, I think the people who sit around and smoke all day everyday are fucking lames too. They never do ANYTHING besides smoke there the pot head stoners that you need to worry about not me. Everything I have said before this post was just to make you mad.

<font color ="midnightblue"> http://img255.echo.cx/img255/795/smilie2ji.png

 

To make me mad... well, you failed in at least one endeavor. I enjoy writing, and I enjoy debating. It takes a little more than the insipid musings of a few bromidic college students to 'stoke my fire'. Whatever your stance, I can at least say this was good 'practice', if nothing was gained by anyone else.

 

Originally posted by Rane:

I smoked like 4 times in my entire life. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we are worthless.

<font color ="midnightblue"> Doesn't it though? Doesn't it though?

 

Instead of making trite remarks and tired excuses, why don't you legitimately defend your position? I challenge you to present a credible answer as to why you feel you can break the law; morally, and socially. If I'm wrong, I'll concede. That's the whole point of this- to challenge ourselves intellectually to make sure that our positions and our beliefs are justifiable. I grant that you may have better things to do, as do I; but then, if you weren't prepared to fully answer to the defense of your dogmas, then you shouldn't have made that first post.

 

On a side note, at the request of my philosophy professor, I've transcribed everything I've typed in this thread onto MS Word, and at 12 font, TNR, single space, and it equates to 11 pages. My professor has taken an active interest in it, as have members from my class and a few of my friends. So, by all means, let's keep this going. Even if you prove me wrong, I just wanna know that if you're going to be adamant about something like smoking pot, that you are damn well certain of what you're talking about.

 

Oh, and Ben: if your proposal goes through, I would humbly request that the award be given to me.

[AngryBMW]

Holy shit Garrett, I hope you are on your schools debate team.

-Marc

[Guest Rane]

Why should someone be able to smoke weed. Because they relax, become less hostile, and if there harming anyone its only themself. Getting pissy drunk in most cases is 100x worse. If smoking weed was legal it shouldn't be able to be done in public(No contact buzz for ppl like you.) and you shouldn't be able to have TO much in your system just like drinking.

 

People would abuse those rules, yes but people abuse the rules we have now. "If everybody smoked a blunt relieved the mind then the world would be a better place." for the most part that is TRUE. The problem today is to many people are stressing over to many things so no body can get along with eachother. If someone smoked weed they'd probably calm waayyy down. I don't mean smoke an ounce of weed and sit around all day like a fucking herb. I mean face a blunt with someone feel almost fine but somewhat relaxed. Whats the problem?

[copperhead]

Why do pro-marijuana people always bring alcohol into marijuana debates? It seems to me that they try to somehow justify marijuana by making the claims that there is something out there that is legal yet worse.

 

Remove alcohol from the debate for once, and then try and bring up some points as to why marijuana is a good thing.

 

Originally posted by Rane:

Why should someone be able to smoke weed. Because they relax, become less hostile, and if there harming anyone its only themself.

If someone needs to relax so bad that they have to use marijuana to do so, they need to reevaluate their lives in order to find out what is wrong with them. There are plenty of ways to unwind that are not harmful to anyone, and well within the confines of the law.

 

And as to only hurting themselves....nah. Garrett argued that THC causes the body to be less immune to disease. More sickness means more load on the hospital system, which means higher insurance rates, and for those without insurance, government money (taxes) covering the rest. That is money out of the pockets of the working class (us).

 

Habitual marijuana users are less productive in society. If employed, they waste company resources (time and money). If unemployed, they sit around on welfare throwing away taxpayer money on more drugs.

 

Also, would it not be fair to say that marijuana is a drug dealers largest seller? If that were to be cut out, dealers would be hurt badly. To compensate, they would have to raise prices on other products. Raising prices on harder drugs means that less drug users can afford them. This is a good thing, because it is an economically natural way to get people off of harder drugs, and put dealers out of business at the same time. This would equate to lower crime.

 

Drug users need to look at the big picture, instead of being all "ME ME ME".

 

btw, Garrett = ownage. Evilevo gets props for bringing some intelligence in, but I feel that it is halfhearted.

[Devils Advocate]

YOU NEED A VAGINA TO PUT YOUR PENIS IN. THRUST, REPEAT.