1059 replies to this topic

[Sam]

It's some wacky marijuana fish!

If weedfish ate all the goldfish crackers, can I make fun of him for cannibalism?

Cannabis-alism?

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

[Ashane]

great informational video on DMT. just got done watching almost every video he has on his youtube channel as well.. lots of interesting stuff about various mysteries, concise and to the point!

[zyko]

great informational video on DMT. just got done watching almost every video he has on his youtube channel as well.. lots of interesting stuff about various mysteries, concise and to the point!

one of my favorite trips. i remember speaking with Confucius for some time

then i called my buddy to tell him how certain i was that michael jordan was the greatest basketball player ever

[housethegrate]

Wrong thread, stoners! This one's about...

[Ashane]

yeah, guess it slipped my mind that we have a psychedelics thread now. whoops!

[Hale-Bopp]

This link should be relevant to all of our interests:

http://dpa.convio.ne...SaCvaHJsdxhNg..

It's a pre-written letter asking your representative in Congress to support the new bill introduced by Ron Paul and Barney Frank to legalize marijuana on the federal level. This would let states decide what they want to do without federal interference and is the first ever law introduced in Congress to legalize it!!

Here's Ron Paul talking about the new bill being introduced today:

[Jacki O.]

ugh why so much love for ron paul's balls? that guy is a douche. i dont see how anyone could say they are so "pro-freedom" and be anti-choice and against safe access for women to reproductive health care and against a person's right to privacy over their own body. all he does is try to take away freedom from women, saying that maternal health should be regulated by the state? how about "the state" (which is another word for government) stays out of a person's personal choices? yet because he's for legalizing cannabis he's all the sudden the best person to lead our country? he's not.

He doesn't believe the government should be involved in medical issues for men, but he believes differently when it comes to women.
He's still coming from a conservative, morally bankrupt background that does not acknowledge the diverse population of the united states.

he's has some smart stances but DUH anyone with a functioning brain could see that we should not be invading other countries or raising taxes or be in NAFTA or be in imprisoning 3% of our population for drug use.

he's still against birthright citizenship and amnesty for immigrants (i.e. hispanic people, he's ok on it if it's white european immigrants), he's co-authored the Sanctity of Life bill that recognizes "personhood" at conception, meaning anyone who has a miscarriage or loses their pregnancy against their will could be charged with homicide.

talk about regulating people.
i guess the woman bearing the fetus, who is also an individual w/ rights, is less important to Paul than those of the fetus or the state government.

if you actively work on taking away freedom and personal rights from one or more segments of the population, you are not an advocate or tool for freedom at all, in any way shape or form. nor are you fit to lead. anyone who considers themselves a follower of the libertarian party should be vocal about getting better politicians. he's still a wolf in sheep's clothing.

/rant

[Rize]

I'm really fed up with this issue. I'm "throwing my vote away" on third party candidates unless my reps and senators vote yes on this issue.

[Hale-Bopp]

I'm really fed up with this issue. I'm "throwing my vote away" on third party candidates unless my reps and senators vote yes on this issue.

That's basically my stance at this point. I'm tired of talking about it. I just want it dealt with already so we can move on to everything else.

Jacki (or anyone else), are there any candidates you like for 2012 that we should know about? I'm not completely decided yet myself.

[Rize]

ugh why so much love for ron paul's balls? that guy is a douche. i dont see how anyone could say they are so "pro-freedom" and be anti-choice and against safe access for women to reproductive health care and against a person's right to privacy over their own body. all he does is try to take away freedom from women, saying that maternal health should be regulated by the state? how about "the state" (which is another word for government) stays out of a person's personal choices? yet because he's for legalizing cannabis he's all the sudden the best person to lead our country? he's not.

In a perfect world, instead of abortion, a fetus would be separated from the mother and raised on machines until it can survive on its own (at which point it would be put up for adoption if the father doesn't want it either). Until we reach that point of technology though, I think abortion ought to be legal. But my opinion on the subject is arbitrary. When it comes to personal choice, it seems like a good idea to let the states decided rather than the federal government. Of course, letting the INDIVIDUAL decide, which is the situation that we currently have, seems like the best idea of all. Except we don't let individuals decide to murder people. That's why abortion is such a thorny and polarizing issue (which, imo, means it should remain an individual choice). I don't think this issue will gain actual traction though. There is not enough support for it; less than 25% want to completely ban abortion.

He doesn't believe the government should be involved in medical issues for men, but he believes differently when it comes to women. He's still coming from a conservative, morally bankrupt background that does not acknowledge the diverse population of the united states.

Right.. not acknowledging the diverse population... that's why he wants to return as much power from federal to state governments as possible.

he's has some smart stances but DUH anyone with a functioning brain could see that we should not be invading other countries or raising taxes or be in NAFTA or be in imprisoning 25% of our population for drug use.

brains must be in short supply then

he's still against birthright citizenship and amnesty for immigrants (i.e. hispanic people, he's ok on it if it's white european immigrants),

you mean for illegal immigrants

he's co-authored the Sanctity of Life bill that recognizes "personhood" at conception, meaning anyone who has a miscarriage or loses their pregnancy against their will could be charged with homicide.

this is a bit hysterical don't you think? I'd be shocked if your worst case scenario came about even with this bill passed and abortion outlawed in every state. to be charged with homicide, a prosecutor would have to show negligence or intent (assuming laws weren't crafted to make this kind of charge impossible). Meanwhile, how much damage does the war on drugs cause? How many deaths? Let's put that on the scales and take the lesser of two evils (i.e. supporting Ron Paul)

talk about regulating people.
i guess the woman bearing the fetus, who is also an individual w/ rights, is less important to Paul than those of the fetus or the state government.

If you consider the fetus a person, then yes an innocent person's rights are more important than a murderers rights. This follows naturally from Ron Paul's belief that human life begins at conception.

if you actively working on taking away freedom and personal rights from one or more segments of the population, you are not an advocate or tool for freedom at all, in any way shape or form.

*shrug*

[Jacki O.]

In a perfect world, instead of abortion, a fetus would be separated from the mother and raised on machines until it can survive on its own (at which point it would be put up for adoption if the father doesn't want it either). Until we reach that point of technology though, I think abortion ought to be legal. But my opinion on the subject is arbitrary. When it comes to personal choice, it seems like a good idea to let the states decided rather than the federal government. Of course, letting the INDIVIDUAL decide, which is the situation that we currently have, seems like the best idea of all. Except we don't let individuals decide to murder people. That's why abortion is such a thorny and polarizing issue (which, imo, means it should remain an individual choice). I don't think this issue will gain actual traction though. There is not enough support for it; less than 25% want to completely ban abortion.

haha what? that doesn't sound like a perfect world. wtf? that sounds horrible.

abortion is not murder. and if you are going to frame a debate in that way that it's not a debate i want to be involved in.

and fyi we do let individuals decide to murder people. they are called soldiers.

Right.. not acknowledging the diverse population... that's why he wants to return as much power from federal to state governments as possible.

this makes no sense to me. he's not acknowledging the diverse population by vowing to end personal/individual choice for women. doesn't matter if he's saying its federal vs state. it's still government meddling in your individual choice for your personal health care. how can a government (big or small, federal or state) anticipate what will happen to each and every woman when it comes to their reproductive systems in the united states?

you mean for illegal immigrants

no for "legal" ones too. if he's against birthright citizenship he's against people who are born in this country. in arizona we just had our state senate president try to take away birthright citizenship for (brown) people born in the United States. for some fucked up (xenophobic/racist) reasons this is an issue to conservatives, taking away citizenship from legal U.S. citizens. it's actually rooted in scaring whitey so they focus their anger and misery of a failed democracy on anyone but the very people that made the mess.

he's co-authored the Sanctity of Life bill that recognizes "personhood" at conception, meaning anyone who has a miscarriage or loses their pregnancy against their will could be charged with homicide.

this is a bit hysterical don't you think? I'd be shocked if your worst case scenario came about even with this bill passed and abortion outlawed in every state. to be charged with homicide, a prosecutor would have to show negligence or intent (assuming laws weren't crafted to make this kind of charge impossible). Meanwhile, how much damage does the war on drugs cause? How many deaths? Let's put that on the scales and take the lesser of two evils (i.e. supporting Ron Paul)

you're absolutely right it is hysterical but that's how zealous and over-reaching anti-choice/freedom people are. and if you dont think that can be a reality, look around you:
Abortion Foes Push to Redefine Personhood
"The bill is written so broadly that it could easily impact other major life decisions in reproductive health care, including birth control and emergency contraception,"
These proposals would ban abortion in all cases, including incest and rape, and criminalize some forms of contraception.
What is certain is that "personhood" measures would provoke many years of legal battles in legislatures and courts, ensnaring women and their partners and doctors in expensive, time-consuming, and potentially liberty-infringing civil or criminal proceedings.
Alabama Alliance Against Abortion Director James Henderson is encouraging the Republican-controlled legislature to dust off a pre-Civil War statute that would make aiding and abetting abortion a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail. That is, if you drive someone to get an abortion in Alabama, you could go to jail.

Personhood bills intend to enshrine into law what I call the male-centric view of baby-making, the belief that a man creates a baby by ejaculating and that a woman’s contribution of nine months of pregnancy and childbirth are just a delivery system for the man’s efforts.

talk about regulating people.
i guess the woman bearing the fetus, who is also an individual w/ rights, is less important to Paul than those of the fetus or the state government.

If you consider the fetus a person, then yes an innocent person's rights are more important than a murderers rights. This follows naturally from Ron Paul's belief that human life begins at conception.

again, that belief system is fucked up and jinxed to begin with. it is an argument that is set up to fail. calling one "side" guilty and another innocent. Sadly that's not reality. every day women and families around the world have to make extremely tough decisions under a myriad of different circumstances that a simplistic statement like that does not even begin to address. it's just a very unrealistic way to view the world. it's fine if you (or Ron Paul or whoever) wants to hold that belief but it's not ok for him to force that belief on everyone else in the country. it's just not the way the world operates. it's like to trying to make the world fit into a neat little box of beliefs and actions and that's just impossible.

i dont look at a pond and say "hey pond. you are now a great lake and your water will flow this way. and you will only accept this many new species of insect into your ecosytem every year. and the fish that live in you will only be this type of fish"

i just say "hey pond"

if you actively working on taking away freedom and personal rights from one or more segments of the population, you are not an advocate or tool for freedom at all, in any way shape or form.

*shrug*

sad

my whole overall opinion is that the "abortion" debate gets so focused and narrowed in that it doesn't look at the bigger and bigger pictures until it completely misses out on what is going on. and people who think and act so narrow-minded can't see the big picture either. being personally against abortion is fine. that's a personal choice and belief to make, and i will fight to make sure everyone gets the chance to make an informed and safe choice as to what is best for themselves and their families. but generalizing something so personal is FAIL


in Finale:
smoke weed everyday and let people live their lives in peace and you'll get my vote.

planned parenthood has a political scorecard page where they measure up our elected officials on their effectiveness in their jobs. it's a good starter for where to find quality candidates.

there's also Pro-Choice Libertarians.net they are "Pro-Choice on Everything!"

Pro-choice Libertarians as an organized group has been active in obtaining that goal since its formation in 1987 when it was feared there was a challenge to the platform. It became active again during other years when there was a challenge to the platform, particularly during the 2002 and 2004 Libertarian Party convention cycles. It was not active during the 2006 Libertarian Convention cycle when delegates gutted much of the platform.

[SenJ]

Now that I'm working I'm starting to put a little money aside so that once I get my own apartment again I can get a nice bong. Two to Three months to go.

[Shervz0r]

This link should be relevant to all of our interests:

http://dpa.convio.ne...SaCvaHJsdxhNg..

It's a pre-written letter asking your representative in Congress to support the new bill introduced by Ron Paul and Barney Frank to legalize marijuana on the federal level. This would let states decide what they want to do without federal interference and is the first ever law introduced in Congress to legalize it!!

Thanks man, I re-wrote part of it, perhaps a bit angrily, as I think there are other obstacles standing in the way of legalization, namely the tobacco, lumber/paper, and even alcohol lobbies. Hemp and MJ pose a great threat to these industries and their market shares, and politicians need the support of their lobbies.

[Ashane]

again, that belief system is fucked up and jinxed to begin with. it is an argument that is set up to fail. calling one "side" guilty and another innocent. Sadly that's not reality. every day women and families around the world have to make extremely tough decisions under a myriad of different circumstances that a simplistic statement like that does not even begin to address. it's just a very unrealistic way to view the world. it's fine if you (or Ron Paul or whoever) wants to hold that belief but it's not ok for him to force that belief on everyone else in the country. it's just not the way the world operates. it's like to trying to make the world fit into a neat little box of beliefs and actions and that's just impossible.

you can't defend liberty and personal choices if you don't defend life. Ron Paul was a physician and delivered about 4000 babies and knows that if he made a mistake, he could be held liable for injuring the unborn because they have legal rights. if a pregnant mother were killed in a homicide, it would be ruled a double homicide.

abortion is not murder. and if you are going to frame a debate in that way that it's not a debate i want to be involved in.

you've got this callous approach that this is only about the privacy of the mother, but what about the privacy of the unborn? doctors can perform an abortion even in the third trimester of pregnancy and get paid, but if for some reason the mother is in dire straits and happens to deliver the baby and throws the baby away, she's arrested for murder. what's the difference between the one minute before and after birth? the life is the same.

this makes no sense to me. he's not acknowledging the diverse population by vowing to end personal/individual choice for women. doesn't matter if he's saying its federal vs state. it's still government meddling in your individual choice for your personal health care. how can a government (big or small, federal or state) anticipate what will happen to each and every woman when it comes to their reproductive systems in the united states?

doesn't matter to you because of your gung-ho stance on this issue, but it does matter because when you turn this type of authority over to the federal government and they make a mistake, they make a mistake for all of us. if you don't like the laws or views established by your community, then move or drive somewhere that allows abortions. people have different views and ideals, as we've established here. one solution doesn't work for all.

[bucky]

Jacki, I agree with your complaints on Ron Paul. However, given how completely and thoroughly fucked the rest of the republicans are, I would be excited if he were the republican nominee for 2012.

It seems that virtually every flaw he has, the rest of the republicans have. Plus a whole lot more. I can understand why people get excited about him- it's refreshing to hear something reasonable from a conservative regarding the war on drugs, prostitution, and war. But I also welcome your criticism, because it seems to me like a whole lot of people think he's this genius that's right about everything (let's call them naive libertarian idealists).

The republicans are a hugely hypocritical party that clamor for state's rights on the surface, but only because in doing so they have better chances at passing laws that fit their (harmful-to-others) dogmatic beliefs. The whole bit about the government treading on them... they don't really give a shit about (eg trying to ban gay marriage, abortion, being cool with the patriot act and wire tapping, etc etc). Ron Paul, flawed as he may be, strikes me as the kind of person who more legitimately has an interest in states' rights. Meaning, he's not going to kick and scream when states legalize stuff like marijuana and gay marriage. That's the difference between him and other republicans. That being said, I am not at all happy or enthusiastic about his stance on abortion and immigration. He's also said stupid shit regarding DADT.

But if he were the republican nominee, he would bring a much more sensible debate to the table than someone like Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann. I also think that with someone like Ron Paul around, there'd be a hell of a lot more room for real progressive change (or at least debate).

I think trying to get republicans behind the legalization of marijuana is a good idea, and I see no reason (if they're not hypocritical) why they wouldn't support this bill.