quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
there is no legal pot industry. the DEA website makes that clear.

Why should the DEA have an opinion?

There certainly is a legal pot industry, states voted.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
Instead of blaming white people, why doesn't he encourage black people to start pot businesses? Given the disproportionate arrests for the stuff black people it seems enjoy it. Given their recent trend for segregation they may like not having to buy their weed from whitey.

I think he should set up some loan opportunities and training for them to start businesses.

There's no money in it for him with independent Black folk. Anyway, he taps the guilty honky as his main source of baksheesh I'm pretty sure.

Inviting an extortionist to be a speaker is like toting a rattlesnake as a comfort animal.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
there is no legal pot industry. the DEA website makes that clear.

Why should the DEA have an opinion?

There certainly is a legal pot industry, states voted.

I think smoking pot is a bad idea generally. Of course, I've never used it so what do I know? Regardless of my personal opinion, I believe people ought to be free to choose for themselves. If and when a user of such does so irresponsibly and harms innocent parties, then the consequences should fall hard. Until then, I default to liberty. I think it's ironic how some who argue against the legality of pot will also argue for the legality of guns. Seems the arguments for each are the same.

Sharpton however, has his money sniffer tuned and running.

The only thing that motivates "Reverend" Al is color. Green.
I guess he could use some of that unpaid tax money to invest in these businesses but the entire game plan is to use OPM.

quote:

Originally posted by Bigboreshooter:
What does it say about your organization when you have Al Sharpton as your keynote speaker?

Two alternatives.

Either a) they are fans of hot air; or b) they are using the savings from hiring inexpensive speakers to scrape together startup capital to open pot stores.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I think it's ironic how some who argue against the legality of pot will also argue for the legality of guns. Seems the arguments for each are the same.

.

Oh, seriously? Last time I checked, there is no 2A equiv for pot.

I really don't see the words "The right of the people to keep and smoke pot shall not be infringed."

What I do see is the controlled substances act.

As for these states screaming "it's legal," I didn't see them rescuing my liberty during the clinton AWB. I don't recall any of them saying, 'Go ahead and build that rifle the way you want, with the flash suppressor and the bayonet lug along with anything else you want on it because we've legalized it at the state level."
Didn't happen, because it doesn't work that way.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I think it's ironic how some who argue against the legality of pot will also argue for the legality of guns. Seems the arguments for each are the same.

.

Oh, seriously? Last time I checked, there is no 2A equiv for pot.

I really don't see the words "The right of the people to keep and smoke pot shall not be infringed."

What I do see is the controlled substances act.

As for these states screaming "it's legal," I didn't see them rescuing my liberty during the clinton AWB. I don't recall any of them saying, 'Go ahead and build that rifle the way you want, with the flash suppressor and the bayonet lug along with anything else you want on it because we've legalized it at the state level."
Didn't happen, because it doesn't work that way.

I agree. But I said the arguments for and against are identical. Let's also remember that there is no line by line delineation of our liberty. To expect or want such sets us up for eventual tyranny

Sharpton is a media whore. He doesn't deserve the publicity he gets.

Darthfuster for President.

Or something.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I agree. But I said the arguments for and against are identical.

You know, that's kind of counterintuitive. Could you lay that out explicitly?

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I agree. But I said the arguments for and against are identical.

You know, that's kind of counterintuitive. Could you lay that out explicitly?

Sure. When I get to a keyboard. Right now I'm typing with my sausage fingers on a mobile phone.

Okay I'm at a keyboard. For the sake of expeditiousness I'll give two examples, but I'm quite sure any argument someone makes for gun control could easily be adapted for pot control. Let's just remove the argument that it is illegal. That one's too easy. It is a trump card designed to ignore the principle.

One argument we hear against pot is how it affects children. Think about the children! Guns affect children! Think about them! The fact is that irresponsible use of both guns and pot given plenty of ammo for those seeking to limit others' liberty. I'm suggesting that we follow a true principle. If we do not learn to honor others' liberty, we will not long keep our own. If we argue that it's for the children and we are tethered to that principle, then anything can be limited for the children until before we know it we are confined to a minimal amount of control over our lives.

My eldest son became involved in marijuana. It may not be accepted as a gateway drug, but it was for him. He lost twenty years, a marriage and years of liberty to drug abuse and the life that orbits it. I am a ferocious anti-drugite, but I am an even more ferocious protector of individual liberty. So I see that if we are to remain free, we must accept and honor others' liberty and apply consequence to abuse/irresponsibility.

Another argument for making pot illegal is that it facilitates a villainous culture. Same argument has been made relative to firearms. Any argument defending firearms ownership can be superimposed over the defense of pot. The only difference I can see is that the second amendment protects arms ownership and use. But we must ask ourselves why it was codified. To prevent govt from becoming tyrannical enough to control our freedom of self determination. Self determination to use pot or not, for example. These are probably not well considered thoughts. It has been a long day and I am tired. But just think of it this way, If a principle is true it can be universally applied. Water is wet. If I drop a ball it falls. When a principle can only be applied circumstantially, it is based in falsity even if there is partial truth.

The only argument that sticks relative to pot is the moral one and our society rejected most moral codes decades ago.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: darthfuster,

I forgot an edit does not bring this back to the top, Joel

Thanks! I see some of the parallels now.

There may be some arguments that don't overlap, I think - for example, one point for individual gun ownership is that it acts as a potential check on the power of the government. I'm not sure there's an analog for marijuana on that one. Having a bit of trouble thinking up think of some way that legalization would deter/oppose a turn toward tyranny.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
Thanks! I see some of the parallels now.

There may be some arguments that don't overlap, I think - for example, one point for individual gun ownership is that it acts as a potential check on the power of the government. I'm not sure there's an analog for marijuana on that one. Having a bit of trouble thinking up think of some way that legalization would deter/oppose a turn toward tyranny.

I don't think pot could prevent tyranny. I think preventing pot IS tyranny. It may be a small tyranny relative to other trespasses by State and fed govs, but it is in principle, tyranny. I look at it as a broken window that goes unrepaired. Though small, it diminishes the value of the neighborhood. Soon another broken window appears down the block. Then another......and another. Soon graffiti shows up and thugs begin to gather. Broken cars and loud music make their presence. Next neighbors do not care how they affect other neighbors. You see where this goes.

Again, I am actively anti drug. I preach to whomever will listen how it has damaged my family. But the culture of tyranny is a greater danger. We have accepted that it's okay to limit others' liberty for our own peace of mind while irresponsibly exercising our own. The answer to difficult questions lies in the examination of true principle. In this case, that principle is that if we do not honor and defend others' liberty, we will not long keep our own.

Drug use is bad. It damages the individual. It is a waste of time and resources at a minimum and self destructive at the other extreme. But armed with the truth of the matter, a free man must be allowed to choose for himself.

fifteen plus years ago investors saw potential and spent their money doing research, copy writing names and making real plans. They invested of themselves against an uncertain future result.
Meanwhile, and still, the inner city minorities are doing street business under the banner of sneakers thrown over telephone wires.
Now The Rev Useless wants His Fair Share
f'em

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I think it's ironic how some who argue against the legality of pot will also argue for the legality of guns. Seems the arguments for each are the same.

.

Oh, seriously? Last time I checked, there is no 2A equiv for pot.

I really don't see the words "The right of the people to keep and smoke pot shall not be infringed."

What I do see is the controlled substances act.

As for these states screaming "it's legal," I didn't see them rescuing my liberty during the clinton AWB. I don't recall any of them saying, 'Go ahead and build that rifle the way you want, with the flash suppressor and the bayonet lug along with anything else you want on it because we've legalized it at the state level."
Didn't happen, because it doesn't work that way.

Maybe the states should have told the feds to fuck off with regards to gun laws.

You can only govern those who allow themselves to be governed, and if your laws are found to be too stringent, don't be surprised if they are broken wholesale.

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I think it's ironic how some who argue against the legality of pot will also argue for the legality of guns. Seems the arguments for each are the same.

.

Oh, seriously? Last time I checked, there is no 2A equiv for pot.

I really don't see the words "The right of the people to keep and smoke pot shall not be infringed."

What I do see is the controlled substances act.

As for these states screaming "it's legal," I didn't see them rescuing my liberty during the clinton AWB. I don't recall any of them saying, 'Go ahead and build that rifle the way you want, with the flash suppressor and the bayonet lug along with anything else you want on it because we've legalized it at the state level."
Didn't happen, because it doesn't work that way.

Maybe the states should have told the feds to fuck off with regards to gun laws.

You can only govern those who allow themselves to be governed, and if your laws are found to be too stringent, don't be surprised if they are broken wholesale.

Sadly the struggle between State and fed powers has resulted in the once free public suffering under two competing tyrannies. The default position of govt is 'No'.

Sharpton is Mr. Extortion.

quote:

Al Sharpton Calling For Diversity in Legal Pot Industry

How about pro sports. They should discard people to balance the numbers. Unfortunately, it wouldn't work well for him.

He loves hearing himself talk. Not that many listen. He's lost a big part of his influence.