Judge takes swing at war on drugs

Rocky Mountain News ^ | January 29, 2003 | Karen Abbott

[Dane]

For the record, Eagle Eye's implication that the "owner" of FR "agrees" with Eagle Eye is to be found in reply #85 of this thread.

[jenny65]

Huh I guess the defeat of the 3 main pro-drug intitatives(in Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio) pushed by the pro-drug lobby and defeated by wide margins last November doesn't mean a thing. The only place where a pro-pot intiative passed was in that "conservative" bastion called San Francisco.

Hmm, where have I heard that before?
Are you getting lazy on us, or do you just have a set of canned responses you refer to?

Oh, and for the record, 43% to 57% doesn't qualify as a "wide margin". If it weren't for John Walters' heroic last-minute-pull-out-all-the-stops propaganda campaign, the Nevada referendum may well have passed (polls showed it very close at one point). But John's got an $18B budget to preserve, so truth goes out the door, and the undecideds fell for his garbage.

[philman_36]

So where do I fit in? Am I, IYO, amongst "the rational" or do I fit into the ?
Curiosity is killing this cat.

[philman_36]

Are you getting lazy on us, or do you just have a set of canned responses you refer to?
I'll put my wager on "a set of canned responses".

[philman_36]

Sheesh replies #294 to #300 makes me think that I am eavesdropping on a screenplay session for the next Cheech & Chong movie.
Simply emphasizing absurdity.
Thanks for the term Wonderweed! I bet you never thought it would come back to haunt you when you started using it.
It really is a wonder, isn't it.
The only known plant in the plant kingdom...

[Ken H]

Can I ask you a question? Please be objective.

Ask away.

This is the second time that you all on the pro drug side of this thread have implied that "the owner" agrees with you.

IMO, calling the anti-WOD side of the debate "pro-drug" is not objective.

Be that as it may, I can only go by what JR has written and he has written against the Federal WOD.

Two posts mentioning this on a thread of over 300 replies does not show a propensity to hide behind others' opinion, in my opinion.

I have given my own opinions and arguments in nearly every post as have most others here.

Aren't you using George Soros as a crutch in the same way to refute the antiWOD arguments as the anti-WOD posters are using JR to support theirs?

[Eagle Eye]

Just because you don't know or you refuse to admit that you know where JR stand on the WoD doens't mean that he hasn't spoken on the issue and that some of us don't know what he said.

Basically, he doesn't like drug abuse, doesn't advocated drug abuse, does not advocate legalization, but also doesn't like the current WoD.

JR came out on this when some of the WoD threads got real nasty and he wanted everyone to cool off. That was about the time that Kevin Curry posted a thread calling some of us warlocks and you were really into that green-faced guy.

Take step one and admit that there are those that don't use drugs but don't agree with the WoD. It will be a big step in your healing process.

[philman_36]

You, like I, have no idea what he thinks and believes...
He's stated his views and they've been linked several times to several threads. Are you really going to try convincing everyone that you've never read his views when they've been given?
I believe tpaine might be able to help you out.

[Eagle Eye]

IMO, calling the anti-WOD side of the debate "pro-drug" is not objective.

It is sheer dishonesty. It is a lie. They know it. They don't care.

[Dane]

It really is a wonder, isn't it. The only known plant(cannabis) in the plant kingdom..

Yep according to you all.

And I can say my opinion all on my own without bringing the "owner" of this site into the debate, like you all try to do. (Replies #85 and #318 being exhibit A and exhibit B).

Seriously, who is the "rough individualist" that you on your side always tout being as the ideal.

JMO, but, IMHO, I should be the winner for the "rough individualist" award for this thread, since I responded to inividual posts and not "pinged" allies or implied in my posts that I could get help from the "owner" of this web site.

[Dane]

It is sheer dishonesty(calling the anti-WOD side of the debate "pro-drug" is not objective.). It is a lie. They know it. They don't care.

So you are implying that the people at NARAL should not be called pro-abortion.

IMHO, you sound like Kate Michaelman(the leader of the pro-abortion movement in the US) with your above italicized statement.

[Voice in your head]

You do not fit in to any category that I referred to. I was referring to arguments, not people.

[philman_36]

That reply sounds like a Wah to me.

[philman_36]

Gotcha.

[Dane]

That reply sounds like a Wah to me.

Every reply sounds like a "Wah" to you unless the reply says something positive about uberweed, IMHO.

[philman_36]

Every reply sounds like a "Wah" to you...
No they don't.

[Dane]

Every reply sounds like a "Wah" to you...(phil)
No they don't.

Whatever Phil, it really doesn't matter, there are bigger things in the world than your quest to legitimize your uberweed.

You all lost last November when voters(evil statists according to some in your merry band) rejected your push of pro-drug ballot intiatives in Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio. San Francisco doen't count since that is la la land and cogent arguements haven't been heard there for at least 40 years.

The fact is that you all don't really matter in the scope of modern American politics, IMHO. For all your caterwalling and George Soros money, you have nada, zilch, except posting articles constantly that basically no one reads(Oh yeah you will say that these threads generate hundreds of replies but do the math and it only comes out to usually thirty people at most)

Have a nice life Phil. Maybe someday you will find that the world doesn't revolve around pot.

[philman_36]

Whatever Phil, it really doesn't matter, there are bigger things in the world than your quest to legitimize your uberweed.
You're lying IMO as it obviously does matter to you. Why are you so often on these WOsD threads? The WOsD must be a "big thing" to warrant so much of your attention. If it weren't such a big deal to you then you wouldn't frequent as many WOsD threads as you do.
...to legitimize your uberweed. I do love how you turn a phrase to suit your purposes. The reeducation people must be so proud of you.
I do have a quest, but it isn't to "legitimize my uberweed" (BTB...which definition exactly are you using for über? there are so many...is it "super"?...superweed?) Try thinking along the lines of "restoring Constitutional principles".
You all lost last November when voters... yada, yada, yada...
Been there, discussed that...something about a** kicking in November...You never addressed that then and I don't expect you to address that now. The battle against the WOsD has been kicking a** since 1975!
The fact is that you all don't really matter in the scope of modern American politics, IMHO.
So kind of you to share your opinion. Too bad you so often offer your opinion as fact. Who is "you all"? If you address me then address me, not some euphamistic group called "you all", as I belong to no group. If others happen to agree with me then that is mere happenstance.
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. Edward Everett Hale
Funny thing about your opinion, it doesn't seem consistent with the growing number of folks who are coming to the realization that the WOsD is a failure and new approaches are being looked at all of the time.
For all your caterwalling and George Soros money, you have nada, zilch, except posting articles constantly that basically no one reads(Oh yeah you will say that these threads generate hundreds of replies but do the math and it only comes out to usually thirty people at most)
As to my "caterwalling"..."Tough titty," said the kitty, "but the milks still good."
I have nothing to do with George Soros and I've never received any money from him. Quit trying to imply things! If you have facts showing that I receive money from any Soros organization then show them. Put up or shut up!
Well, I'm not sure if there is a means of finding out just how many people actually read each post, but I'd be willing to bet that you're wrong. I'm sure that numerous folks read these threads. They're Lurkers, and they're proud of it!
Have a nice life Phil.
False sincerity gets you nowhere.
Maybe someday you will find that the world doesn't revolve around pot.
I don't believe that the world revolves around pot. It may be what you believe, and what you want others to believe, but you're extremely mistaken.

[IncPen]

However, most of the folks arguing against the Federal WOD are not argung a "pro-dope" position, no matter how many times you make the claim.

No matter how many times you deny it, if there's no WOD we're a 'pro-dope' nation. Blaming the problems of addiction on the WOD is a common straw argument on these threads. "Medical Marijuana" is another (fervently put forward- ad nauseum- by the person who started this thread). As I said, Amsterdam is the petri dish example of the way it will be if you folks get your way.

It is part of getting the Federal government out of areas not authorized by the Constitution such as healh care, education, the environment and welfare policies.

Agreed, government doesn't belong in people's lives. But protecting my rights from the certain effects of a stoned society may necessarily involve curtailing what you believe to be 'your rights'. And if you think "welfare policies" have run amok today, wait til every high school kid needs to be in detox- and YOU have to pay for it.

You should inform yourself of this by reading the mission statement of Free Republic.

Irrelevant. Last time I checked there wasn't a litmus test for discussion on this forum as long as the rules of conduct are followed. JimRob has never and I dare say WOULD never impose his opinions on me.

Yes, the owner of this site agrees with my position on the WOD.

I have no idea why you addressed this statement to me. In any case, Jim Robinson has never demanded lock-step adherence to any view, least of all his own. He runs a discussion forum. If dissent bothers you, well, play somewhere else.

Are you going to tell him to go to Amsterdam?

If he asks, I'll tell him. He hasn't asked.

[Ken H]

No how many time you may deny it, if there's no WOD, we're a pro-dope nation.

We had no WOD until recently and I don't think the US could seriously be called "pro-dope" for most of its history.

Protecting my rights from certain effects of a stoned society may necessarily involve curtailing what you believe to be "your rights".

I believe my rights, and yours, include the First through Tenth Amendments.

Which ones need curtailing?

And if you think welfare policies a run amok today, just wait until every high school kid is in detox and YOU have to pay for it.

We're paying huge bucks now because of a liberal approach to the Commerce and General Welfare Clauses. We'll keep paying big bucks as long as we have a living, breathing Constitution. I'm trying my best to let you keep more of your money.

Last time I checked, there never was a litmus test for discussion on this forum as long as rules of conduct are followed.

Where did you get that?? I never said or implied otherwise. I referred you to the "Mission Statement" to view the context of the WOD discussion as it fits in with the discussion of Federal involvement in education, welfare etc.

I have no idea why you addressed this to me[re Jim Robinson].

Look, you threw an elbow with your "pro-dope" and "your utopia" comments. I just threw one back.

If dissent bothers you, go play somewhere else.

I never said JR wanted no dissenting opinions. I never said I wanted no dissenting opinions. Geez, you read a lot of things into that post that weren't there.

I enjoy good, hard fought debates. Place would would be dreadful without them.