Author Topic: A positive for state's rights! (Read 11820 times)

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #25 on:** October 21, 2009, 08:05:29 PM »

Don't worry. We'll see pictures of Micro in lingerie before we see pictures of fistful in lingerie.

Strings · « **Reply #26 on:** October 21, 2009, 08:16:45 PM »

Oh... did he manage to destroy all the negatives and prints?

lupinus · « **Reply #27 on:** October 21, 2009, 08:52:40 PM »

Quote from: Marnoot on October 21, 2009, 07:59:40 PM

Ewwww. Pictures of fistful in lingerie? Whatever floats your boat, man...

Fjolnirsson · « **Reply #28 on:** October 21, 2009, 08:57:20 PM »

Lupinus is NOT a nice man..... :|

sanglant · « **Reply #29 on:** October 21, 2009, 09:14:50 PM »

i vote for a temp ban for that post

MechAg94 · « **Reply #30 on:** October 21, 2009, 09:26:58 PM »

Quote from: Balog on October 21, 2009, 10:28:50 AM

You're a teetotaler then?

Never count your tea before you drink it.

On the OP, this is not a state rights issue because the Feds are not saying they can't prosecute those cases, just that they have better things to do. They still reserve the right to go after "legal" pot users should someone decide it is important again.

Physics · « **Reply #31 on:** October 21, 2009, 10:29:31 PM »

My question is thus: Does this mean that medical marijuana users are no longer "unlawful users of marijuana" per the 4473 and thus able to purchase firearms without committing perjury?

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #32 on:** October 21, 2009, 11:37:33 PM »

Technically it's still against the law, they haven't changed the law. They just decided they aren't going to bother investigating and prosecuting the law.

Balog · « **Reply #33 on:** October 22, 2009, 12:51:06 AM »

Quote from: Gewehr98 on October 21, 2009, 10:53:51 AM

Word to the wise - be very careful answering Balog's question.

IOW, it's a trap, and he's used it here before.

G98 is Admiral Ackbar?!?!

Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 21, 2009, 12:07:53 PM

Not very effectively...

And they accuse me of picking fights about this...

I was tempted to respond with an equally smart ass comment there HTG, but I just get tired of banging my head on your particular brick wall.

For the record, yes I do find it ironic and hypocritical for someone who uses one recreational drug to claim vast moral superiority over someone who uses a different recreational drug.

For the arguments about legalization, well.... if you contend that the world would have been a better place if Prohibition had never been repealed or refuse to examine the historical evidence of what actually happens when a banned recreational drug is legalized and instead weave wild fantasies about blood in the streets ala the Brady Bunch there's not a whole lot of room for discussion. Which is why we agreed to disagree. Which is why I'm not happy at that little cheap shot apropos of nothing.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #34 on:** October 22, 2009, 01:42:45 AM »

Eh, take khat. Khat is fully legal where I live, and yet... no blood in the streets.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #35 on:** October 22, 2009, 12:32:03 PM »

Quote from: Balog on October 22, 2009, 12:51:06 AM

G98 is Admiral Ackbar?!?!

And they accuse me of picking fights about this...

I was tempted to respond with an equally smart ass comment there HTG, but I just get tired of banging my head on your particular brick wall.

For the record, yes I do find it ironic and hypocritical for someone who uses one recreational drug to claim vast moral superiority over someone who uses a different recreational drug.

For the arguments about legalization, well.... if you contend that the world would have been a better place if Prohibition had never been repealed or refuse to examine the historical evidence of what actually happens when a banned recreational drug is legalized and instead weave wild fantasies about blood in the streets ala the Brady Bunch there's not a whole lot of room for discussion. Which is why we agreed to disagree. Which is why I'm not happy at that little cheap shot apropos of nothing.

Edit: Never mind. Call me names all you want, I won't drop to that level with you. I just ask that you not take it personally when someone offers simple disagreement with you, and that you not act as though such disagreement constitutes some sort of personal failing. I think we can get along with each other civilly even if we disagree on some issues.

Balog · « **Reply #36 on:** October 22, 2009, 01:23:11 PM »

I find it ironic that you start this whole thing with a pot shot at me out of nowhere then talk about "not sinking to that level." :rolleyes:

And I don't take your position personally, I just dislike when you ask for a truce then break it for no damn reason.

As for accusing you of personal failings, I have not done so. I have said your position is illogical, and I have asked if this might be a result of an emotional experience clouding your judgement. You're the one who keeps bringing your friend who OD'ed on Ecstasy up in these threads, and "I'm against A, which a person I cared about died from. But how dare you suggest having a friend die affects my judgement!!!" is not logical. If you think asking if you are impartial is personally insulting, well.... I'm not an emotionless Vulcan and I doubt you are either. I don't debate the Iraq war because it's too personal for me. Sorry if you feel that is a personal attack.

AJ Dual · « **Reply #37 on:** October 22, 2009, 03:23:56 PM »

Well, I think if you can all just hang on until the Singularity, you can then just edit out pain and discomfort from the source-code of your uploaded forms. No need for M.D. MJ then.

Gewehr98 · « **Reply #38 on:** October 22, 2009, 04:26:52 PM »

As somebody who lost a sibling to a drunk driver, even I know there are no absolutes in substance abuse. However, I'd gladly vote for capital punishment as a deterrent to DUI vehicular homicide. I suppose that makes me a hypocrite, since I'm also making several batches of country wine for christmas presents this year, but hey, there it is. Ours is not a black and white world...

Balog · « **Reply #39 on:** October 22, 2009, 06:26:24 PM »

"Legalize substance X" and "death penalty for those committing mala in se crimes under the influence of substance X" are not opposing viewpoints.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #40 on:** October 22, 2009, 06:38:57 PM »

This thread has become very acrimonious, and I no longer wish to be associated with it. Please take down my picture from the earlier post.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #41 on:** October 22, 2009, 09:12:34 PM »

Quote from: Balog on October 22, 2009, 01:23:11 PM

I find it ironic that you start this whole thing with a pot shot at me out of nowhere then talk about "not sinking to that level." :rolleyes:

And I don't take your position personally, I just dislike when you ask for a truce then break it for no damn reason.

As for accusing you of personal failings, I have not done so. I have said your position is illogical, and I have asked if this might be a result of an emotional experience clouding your judgement. You're the one who keeps bringing your friend who OD'ed on Ecstasy up in these threads, and "I'm against A, which a person I cared about died from. But how dare you suggest having a friend die affects my judgement!!!" is not logical. If you think asking if you are impartial is personally insulting, well.... I'm not an emotionless Vulcan and I doubt you are either. I don't debate the Iraq war because it's too personal for me. Sorry if you feel that is a personal attack.

Ok.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #42 on:** October 22, 2009, 09:17:28 PM »

Quote from: Balog on October 22, 2009, 06:26:24 PM

"Legalize substance X" and "death penalty for those committing mala in se crimes under the influence of substance X" are not opposing viewpoints.

What do you think about laws against drunk driving?

Balog · « **Reply #43 on:** October 22, 2009, 09:33:34 PM »

Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 22, 2009, 09:17:28 PM

What do you think about laws against drunk driving?

I'm for them. I think they can be abused like any law, and there is a lot of scare mongering by neo-Prohibitionist groups like MADD. Note I wasn't saying I want those laws, just saying G98's position was not hypocritical.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #44 on:** October 22, 2009, 10:29:32 PM »

Quote from: Balog on October 22, 2009, 09:33:34 PM

I'm for them. I think they can be abused like any law, and there is a lot of scare mongering by neo-Prohibitionist groups like MADD. Note I wasn't saying I want those laws, just saying G98's position was not hypocritical.

Innerasting. If you're OK with drunk driving laws, then I think you've just stumbled backwards into one of the main reasons why your teetotaler shtick is folly.

Strings · « **Reply #45 on:** October 23, 2009, 05:42:13 AM »

Ok, you JUST lost me.

I have no problem with legalization of most drugs. However, at the same time, I have no issue with the concept of drunk (or drugged) driving laws. I DO think they need to be reworked a bit, but don't have an issue with the concept itself...

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #46 on:** October 23, 2009, 09:30:14 AM »

Quote from: Balog on October 22, 2009, 09:33:34 PM

I'm for them. I think they can be abused like any law, and there is a lot of scare mongering by neo-Prohibitionist groups like MADD. Note I wasn't saying I want those laws, just saying G98's position was not hypocritical.

Can be abused? You think they aren't?

Balog · « **Reply #47 on:** October 23, 2009, 11:26:54 AM »

Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 22, 2009, 10:29:32 PM

Innerasting. If you're OK with drunk driving laws, then I think you've just stumbled backwards into one of the main reasons why your teetotaler shtick is folly.

Huh? How are banning something (drugs, guns) and mandating harsh penalties for that somethings misuse (drunk driving, shooting into the air) related? I'm curious now. My position is "No prior restraint laws." Punish misuse, not possession of something that can be misused. I really don't understand what you disagree with about that.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #48 on:** October 23, 2009, 11:29:37 AM »

Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 21, 2009, 08:05:29 PM

Don't worry. We'll see pictures of Micro in lingerie before we see pictures of fistful in lingerie.

Why would I post pictures of myself wearing something like that? If I'm going to post barely-dressed erotic photos of myself, I would just post naked erotic photos of myself and get it over with.

Gewehr98 · « **Reply #49 on:** October 23, 2009, 12:26:18 PM »

Please don't. There ain't enough eye-bleach in this hemisphere to treat the afflicted.

News:

Author Topic: A positive for state's rights! (Read 11820 times)