Then stand up to the people giving your party a bad name. You know, the ones who actually determine the platform of the US Libertarian Party. Or call yourself something else. I prefer 'anarchist,' from an-archos, 'no ruler.' Not 'no government.'
Don't call yourself a libertarian. Call yourself an anarchist and I will have a lot more respect for you. Heck, call yourself free market anarchist if that's what you are.
It shakes up libertarian assumptions and gets people talking. You get a chance to assert how your views are different from big L libertarians (the folks I'm really dissing.) Most libertarians fully embrace corporatism, and this is the major problem I've got with them.
All "reasonable" libertarian I've talked to aren't actually libertarians. They just like to call themselves that because they want a smaller government. Lots of different philosophies want smaller government. Why align yourself with a group that doesn't represent what you really think?
This just shows the utter hypocrisy of the libertarians. I've said all along that libertarians really want corporate feudalism, or at least they have been completely co-opted by corporate feudalists. Libertarians, in general, feel they are superior to everyone else. They also feel that it is a natural right for the elite to profit from the plebeians. When anything threatens their real agenda, they will set aside their supposed ideals to destroy it. Free software reduces the ability of the elite to profit off of the 'inferior people' of the world, and therefore it must be destroyed. Unions, even though they are a product of free association, also threaten libertarians ability to exploit others, and so you will never find a libertarian who is pro union, even though, according to their ideals, they should be.
The thing is, Libertarians always have such high levels of cognitive dissonance, they do not realize this is what they are doing. They firmly believe they are 'good' people, because being a 'good' person goes along with their image of themselves as vastly superior beings, so they will never look at all the ways their ideals and actions work to oppress the less fortunate. In their minds, they are helping the less fortunate by exploiting them.
Yes. You arbitrarily decided to read Slashdot one day. In order to maintain internal consistency, your brain had to make it seem like this is a good idea, and continually offers up excuses for reading Slashdot.
"Write only memory" is such a hoary old joke, I'm surprised it got modded up at all. I'm doubly surprised it got modded informative. I'm triply surprised that some people have responded as if I was actually serious.
It is when I post in stories like this that certain people think, "oh, THAT'S what he means by spun." And then they giggle to themselves. Of course, they are wrong. Spun stands for 'Seth: Perfect Unix Nerd.' Really. I'm totally serious.
Weird. Never met someone they just don't work on at all, but I have to take your word for it. It's too bad, I find the high from edibles to be great, long lasting fun.
Yeah, in that sense any illegal drug is a narcotic. That's why I admitted to being a little bit pedantic about it. I'm not a linguistic prescriptivist or anything, but the root 'narco' does mean sleep, is all I'm saying, Mr. Tripp.:)
Hey, I can tell you all about pot addiction. I'm an addict. I also smoke cigarettes and drink coffee. I've also, at one point or another in my life, given up all three for at least a year in each case, so I can compare withdrawal symptoms, and negative versus positive effects.
You say it's on a par with a junk food addiction. I'd guess that's about right. Comparing it to cigarettes, quitting cold turkey, you will get a lot of the same symptoms. Irritable and maybe some cold like symptoms for three days or so.
As for the physical harm associated with the addiction, it's probably less than cigarettes or junk food, but more than coffee. Lung damage is the major thing, but cigarettes are far worse in that respect.
The major negative effect of pot is amotivational syndrome: it makes it far easier to deal with boredom, and therefore one is less likely to get up off one's ass and do something interesting. However, most people, including myself, who turn to pot already have some sort of motivational problems, so it's kind of hard to properly judge cause and effect.
As far as your bullet points go, I agree. But, and maybe I'm just lucky in this, I've never had to deal with thuggish dealers. They've all been fine, upstanding individuals.
I went from Vista to Win7 RC1 and didn't have any problems. Every time I see a comment like this, I think to myself "Why don't I ever have these problems?"
Well?
The great and powerful Windows has decided to eat your first born child, instead. Fortunately for you, you will remain a virgin your entire life and thus escape this terrible fate.
All I'm looking for is one study showing that pot produces significantly more damage, either personal or social or both, than alcohol. That is nothing like proving a negative.
As I have seen a number of studies showing the exact opposite, you are right. With just one study, the evidence would still be on my side.
You can grow tobacco. You can brew beer. A few people do those things as a hobby, but not enough to make any sort of economic impact. And for the record, I've forgotten more about economics than you'll ever know. If your argument is, "it's illegal because everyone can grow it," then you really don't know much about the subject at all.
Please, for the love of God, send me some of those Krispy Kremes. They closed every single Krispy Kreme in my town.
My guess is, you aren't making them right. When I worked in the business, my roommate, a chef with quite a bit of baking experience, made them regularly to sell to the clubs. He would use leftover trimmings that aren't really fit to be sold for smoking. His recipe consisted of a lot of clarified butter, a little vodka, and a lot of trimmings, simmer gently for 24 hours. Then squeeze through a cheesecloth and use the butter in recipes.
I'm a heavyweight when it comes to pot, but I wouldn't want to eat more than half a brownie or cookie of his. As they were made with leftover trimming that wouldn't get sold for smoking anyway, the large amount being used in each goody is a moot point.
No, it should be handled like alcohol and cigarettes, both much more harmful recreational drugs. Here's a news flash, medical marijuana was ALWAYS a back door to legalization because complete legalization, along with subsequent regulation and taxation, is the only legitimate action the government should take regarding such a harmless drug. No one has ever died from pot. No one gets high and starts fights. No one steals to pay for pot. About the worst you can say about it is that it makes dealing with boredom a little too easy.
I challenge you to find one legitimate reason, backed up by published science, that pot should be illegal.
You're thinking I was serious, rather than making a joke. Did I say, "they test you to see how much pot you can smoke?" No, because that wasn't the phrase used in the post I replied to. I used the generic term drugs, which encompasses cannabis and other hallucinogens.
But, trust me on this Myke, it is possible to eat enough cannabis baked goods to hallucinate pretty hard. Cannabis IS a hallucinogen, just a rather mild one.
You are correct, a chillum is a straight pipe. It was designed to be held in a cupped hand, sticking up from between two fingers. Then suck from your cupped hand, rather than directly from the chillum. A bong must touch your mouth. Maybe not inside your mouth, but it must touch around your lips, so it isn't safe.
Sure, they test you to see how many drugs you can do and still write a comprehensible sentence in English. After finishing the test I can assure you that barn owl first window, uh, the sunshine, look at the colors, man, I can taste them!
Slashdot Mirror
Then stand up to the people giving your party a bad name. You know, the ones who actually determine the platform of the US Libertarian Party. Or call yourself something else. I prefer 'anarchist,' from an-archos, 'no ruler.' Not 'no government.'
Don't call yourself a libertarian. Call yourself an anarchist and I will have a lot more respect for you. Heck, call yourself free market anarchist if that's what you are.
It shakes up libertarian assumptions and gets people talking. You get a chance to assert how your views are different from big L libertarians (the folks I'm really dissing.) Most libertarians fully embrace corporatism, and this is the major problem I've got with them.
All "reasonable" libertarian I've talked to aren't actually libertarians. They just like to call themselves that because they want a smaller government. Lots of different philosophies want smaller government. Why align yourself with a group that doesn't represent what you really think?
See, if all libertarians were as reasonable as you I wouldn't diss on you guys so much. :)
This just shows the utter hypocrisy of the libertarians. I've said all along that libertarians really want corporate feudalism, or at least they have been completely co-opted by corporate feudalists. Libertarians, in general, feel they are superior to everyone else. They also feel that it is a natural right for the elite to profit from the plebeians. When anything threatens their real agenda, they will set aside their supposed ideals to destroy it. Free software reduces the ability of the elite to profit off of the 'inferior people' of the world, and therefore it must be destroyed. Unions, even though they are a product of free association, also threaten libertarians ability to exploit others, and so you will never find a libertarian who is pro union, even though, according to their ideals, they should be.
The thing is, Libertarians always have such high levels of cognitive dissonance, they do not realize this is what they are doing. They firmly believe they are 'good' people, because being a 'good' person goes along with their image of themselves as vastly superior beings, so they will never look at all the ways their ideals and actions work to oppress the less fortunate. In their minds, they are helping the less fortunate by exploiting them.
Yes. You arbitrarily decided to read Slashdot one day. In order to maintain internal consistency, your brain had to make it seem like this is a good idea, and continually offers up excuses for reading Slashdot.
Prostitution is one of the few crimes that make a person a criminal if he/she sells something that is normally "free".
Sometimes you can barter for it, but it's never free.
Why so angry?
"Write only memory" is such a hoary old joke, I'm surprised it got modded up at all. I'm doubly surprised it got modded informative. I'm triply surprised that some people have responded as if I was actually serious.
*sigh*
It will be commercially available by January. The bad news is, this is a write only memory device.
It is when I post in stories like this that certain people think, "oh, THAT'S what he means by spun." And then they giggle to themselves. Of course, they are wrong. Spun stands for 'Seth: Perfect Unix Nerd.' Really. I'm totally serious.
Weird. Never met someone they just don't work on at all, but I have to take your word for it. It's too bad, I find the high from edibles to be great, long lasting fun.
Yeah, in that sense any illegal drug is a narcotic. That's why I admitted to being a little bit pedantic about it. I'm not a linguistic prescriptivist or anything, but the root 'narco' does mean sleep, is all I'm saying, Mr. Tripp. :)
I'm sure there are YouTube videos demonstrating the proper method of using a chillum. That being said, most of them aren't really made right.
Not to be a pedant, but cocaine and amphetamines are classified as stimulants. In the US, "narcotics" means opium derivatives.
Hey, I can tell you all about pot addiction. I'm an addict. I also smoke cigarettes and drink coffee. I've also, at one point or another in my life, given up all three for at least a year in each case, so I can compare withdrawal symptoms, and negative versus positive effects.
You say it's on a par with a junk food addiction. I'd guess that's about right. Comparing it to cigarettes, quitting cold turkey, you will get a lot of the same symptoms. Irritable and maybe some cold like symptoms for three days or so.
As for the physical harm associated with the addiction, it's probably less than cigarettes or junk food, but more than coffee. Lung damage is the major thing, but cigarettes are far worse in that respect.
The major negative effect of pot is amotivational syndrome: it makes it far easier to deal with boredom, and therefore one is less likely to get up off one's ass and do something interesting. However, most people, including myself, who turn to pot already have some sort of motivational problems, so it's kind of hard to properly judge cause and effect.
As far as your bullet points go, I agree. But, and maybe I'm just lucky in this, I've never had to deal with thuggish dealers. They've all been fine, upstanding individuals.
You still have me foe'd. Aren't we over our little feud yet? You could learn so much from me, young pud-one.
I keed, I keed. ;)
I went from Vista to Win7 RC1 and didn't have any problems. Every time I see a comment like this, I think to myself "Why don't I ever have these problems?"
Well?
The great and powerful Windows has decided to eat your first born child, instead. Fortunately for you, you will remain a virgin your entire life and thus escape this terrible fate.
Damnit I miss Bill Hicks.
All I'm looking for is one study showing that pot produces significantly more damage, either personal or social or both, than alcohol. That is nothing like proving a negative.
As I have seen a number of studies showing the exact opposite, you are right. With just one study, the evidence would still be on my side.
You can grow tobacco. You can brew beer. A few people do those things as a hobby, but not enough to make any sort of economic impact. And for the record, I've forgotten more about economics than you'll ever know. If your argument is, "it's illegal because everyone can grow it," then you really don't know much about the subject at all.
Please, for the love of God, send me some of those Krispy Kremes. They closed every single Krispy Kreme in my town.
My guess is, you aren't making them right. When I worked in the business, my roommate, a chef with quite a bit of baking experience, made them regularly to sell to the clubs. He would use leftover trimmings that aren't really fit to be sold for smoking. His recipe consisted of a lot of clarified butter, a little vodka, and a lot of trimmings, simmer gently for 24 hours. Then squeeze through a cheesecloth and use the butter in recipes.
I'm a heavyweight when it comes to pot, but I wouldn't want to eat more than half a brownie or cookie of his. As they were made with leftover trimming that wouldn't get sold for smoking anyway, the large amount being used in each goody is a moot point.
No, it should be handled like alcohol and cigarettes, both much more harmful recreational drugs. Here's a news flash, medical marijuana was ALWAYS a back door to legalization because complete legalization, along with subsequent regulation and taxation, is the only legitimate action the government should take regarding such a harmless drug. No one has ever died from pot. No one gets high and starts fights. No one steals to pay for pot. About the worst you can say about it is that it makes dealing with boredom a little too easy.
I challenge you to find one legitimate reason, backed up by published science, that pot should be illegal.
You're thinking I was serious, rather than making a joke. Did I say, "they test you to see how much pot you can smoke?" No, because that wasn't the phrase used in the post I replied to. I used the generic term drugs, which encompasses cannabis and other hallucinogens.
But, trust me on this Myke, it is possible to eat enough cannabis baked goods to hallucinate pretty hard. Cannabis IS a hallucinogen, just a rather mild one.
You are correct, a chillum is a straight pipe. It was designed to be held in a cupped hand, sticking up from between two fingers. Then suck from your cupped hand, rather than directly from the chillum. A bong must touch your mouth. Maybe not inside your mouth, but it must touch around your lips, so it isn't safe.
Sure, they test you to see how many drugs you can do and still write a comprehensible sentence in English. After finishing the test I can assure you that barn owl first window, uh, the sunshine, look at the colors, man, I can taste them!