Weed decriminalization begins this Friday
[views:14766][posts:187]__________________________________________
[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.