https://zenpype.com/a-powerful-republican-senator-hints-that-congress-may-discuss-nationwide-marijuana-legalization-this-year/
weed is degenerate but data from Colorado, legalization reversed a 14-year trend of rising opioid deaths
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304059?journalCode=ajph&
so this would solve the opioid crisis saving white lives and also putting a feather in the trump administrations cap as they already declared that to be an important issue
it'd also take the weed card out of the political deck and you won't have to argue with some lolberg about why they shouldn't vote for Cory Booker or some shit in 2020 just because he's pro-weed.
Also without the drug war sessions might actually get around to doing his fucking job
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 444652FCAC3323178F9BA45D81ABFD07-113746.jpg (111.1 KB, 800x400, Mixing-Different-Cannabis-….jpg)
I say legalize it
1. I would rather deal with stoners than opioid junkies
2. It would remove a lot of the legal confusion around hemp
3. Marijuana gets shitlibs to show up to the polls. If it is legal less of them will be voting.
1. I would rather deal with stoners than opioid junkies
2. It would remove a lot of the legal confusion around hemp
3. Marijuana gets shitlibs to show up to the polls. If it is legal less of them will be voting.
>>114985
I hate that it is just legalized. This is just my opinion, but I want to see tough penalties put in place for those that misuse drugs. I’m tired of seeing news stories of people being drunk or high and then killing someone. The excuse is that the people were impaired and, therefore, should be let off easy. If drugs are to be allowed, the public should fear using them in ways that can lead to the death of hard working citizens and ruining families.
The excuse is the death resulting from impairment was an accident, but the conditions that led up to it were by conscience choice. It’s like playing with a gun and it goes off and kills someone next to you. You should get the full force of the law (I argue death penalty) because you failed something as simple and making sure you were the only one that could get hurt. You should have done it at home when you were alone. I don’t want to see someone so stupid to return to society.
And I have a personal hatred of seeing people waste their lives away by investing in something that erodes their health, wealth, and work ethic with no return but quickly fleeting pleasure and removal from suffering, only to have it crashing back down upon themselves instead of dealing with it in productive ways. However, I suppose that isn’t reason enough to have it illegal for everyone.
I hate that it is just legalized. This is just my opinion, but I want to see tough penalties put in place for those that misuse drugs. I’m tired of seeing news stories of people being drunk or high and then killing someone. The excuse is that the people were impaired and, therefore, should be let off easy. If drugs are to be allowed, the public should fear using them in ways that can lead to the death of hard working citizens and ruining families.
The excuse is the death resulting from impairment was an accident, but the conditions that led up to it were by conscience choice. It’s like playing with a gun and it goes off and kills someone next to you. You should get the full force of the law (I argue death penalty) because you failed something as simple and making sure you were the only one that could get hurt. You should have done it at home when you were alone. I don’t want to see someone so stupid to return to society.
And I have a personal hatred of seeing people waste their lives away by investing in something that erodes their health, wealth, and work ethic with no return but quickly fleeting pleasure and removal from suffering, only to have it crashing back down upon themselves instead of dealing with it in productive ways. However, I suppose that isn’t reason enough to have it illegal for everyone.
I'm completely against legalizing the shit. I had to deal with my dad smoking pot, I'm not going to have to deal with the entire nation being that fucking dumb from the resulting giant cloud of pot smoke.
I think I feel roughly the same way about this that a temperance advocate might have felt in the 30s. I don't support legalization but I think it's just a losing battle at this point. Personally I dislike weed, the handful of times I've smoked it I found the high to be just the absolute worst feeling in the world, and I can't stand being around heavy pot smokers because it gets to the point where that's just literally all they do and all they talk about. I think the world is generally better off without it, but I don't get the impression that public sentiment feels the same, so it's just not a hill that's worth dying on at this point.
File (): 71988BEB8A0F07385C42D0316E5DB27B-1228215.jpg (1.2 MB, 3264x2448, IMG_1237.JPG)
>>114985
I was diagnosed with adhd and autism in early gradeschool. I got hooked on pot in highschool. I had a friend and he introduced me to it my fresman year. This kid was a straight A student and he currently lives with his pregnant girlfriend in Colorado. Successful, I add. Before I started smoking I had just learned that I could make my own path in life, and my friend new how to get weed. I fully understand that smoking weed is a choice and it comes with consequences. The drug only has the control you give it. If you have to have it, you become an addict and you'll prioritize getting high before paying bills. However, my first experience with bud was hallucinations. I continued to smoke it because i knew how it affected me and I knew how much control I had over it. But at the same time it is still illegal in my state and have gotten fined out the ass for it because I was dumb enough to get caught at school with it. This stuff doesn't look good on your record and no one will respect you if you can't pass a drug test. Sure it's a fun drug, but if you don't know when enough is enough you're fucked and you ruin it for everybody else.
pic related a drug test i took recently
I was diagnosed with adhd and autism in early gradeschool. I got hooked on pot in highschool. I had a friend and he introduced me to it my fresman year. This kid was a straight A student and he currently lives with his pregnant girlfriend in Colorado. Successful, I add. Before I started smoking I had just learned that I could make my own path in life, and my friend new how to get weed. I fully understand that smoking weed is a choice and it comes with consequences. The drug only has the control you give it. If you have to have it, you become an addict and you'll prioritize getting high before paying bills. However, my first experience with bud was hallucinations. I continued to smoke it because i knew how it affected me and I knew how much control I had over it. But at the same time it is still illegal in my state and have gotten fined out the ass for it because I was dumb enough to get caught at school with it. This stuff doesn't look good on your record and no one will respect you if you can't pass a drug test. Sure it's a fun drug, but if you don't know when enough is enough you're fucked and you ruin it for everybody else.
pic related a drug test i took recently
>>115092
>I can't stand being around heavy pot smokers because it gets to the point where that's just literally all they do and all they talk about.
fighting for legalization is what gets people like that to vote, do you really want them voting?
>I can't stand being around heavy pot smokers because it gets to the point where that's just literally all they do and all they talk about.
fighting for legalization is what gets people like that to vote, do you really want them voting?
>>115108
I didn’t argue complete ban of drugs, though I wouldn’t mind that. But yes, people would get drugs no matter what. That’s why if it is legal, the laws need to be more demanding against those that wind up doing crimes with said drugs. If you waste yourself away on drugs, good for you. If you kill someone because you just had to get high and be careless, you should not have the chance to do so again.
And this isn’t a gun debate. Guns have self defense worth. Explain why people need unlimited recreational useage to better themselves or others please and I might better see where your coming from.
I didn’t argue complete ban of drugs, though I wouldn’t mind that. But yes, people would get drugs no matter what. That’s why if it is legal, the laws need to be more demanding against those that wind up doing crimes with said drugs. If you waste yourself away on drugs, good for you. If you kill someone because you just had to get high and be careless, you should not have the chance to do so again.
And this isn’t a gun debate. Guns have self defense worth. Explain why people need unlimited recreational useage to better themselves or others please and I might better see where your coming from.
File (): 008E1CA73382B94C075FC30296B4FAD3-39011.jpg (38.1 KB, 372x300, 1433851082789.jpg)
>>115072
>The excuse is that the people were impaired and, therefore, should be let off easy.
That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. They'll put you away for fucking life in this country just for driving drunk. Not for running people over, not for causing property damage or actually putting anybody in any danger, just for being intoxicated while driving. In most states police can arrest you for having ANY amount of alcohol in your system, even if it is well below the legal limit.
Name ONE FUCKING CASE where someone who committed an act of murder, whether intentionally or not, under the influence of alcohol got off with an easy penalty. The only people who ever get a pass on that kind of stuff are shitskin subhumans, cause dey wuz good boyz and they didn know no better.
I hate stoners and hippies and other faggots too, but what you're saying makes no sense. There is no precedence for it. Penalties on substance abuse in this country are among the most severe that we have.
>The excuse is that the people were impaired and, therefore, should be let off easy.
That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. They'll put you away for fucking life in this country just for driving drunk. Not for running people over, not for causing property damage or actually putting anybody in any danger, just for being intoxicated while driving. In most states police can arrest you for having ANY amount of alcohol in your system, even if it is well below the legal limit.
Name ONE FUCKING CASE where someone who committed an act of murder, whether intentionally or not, under the influence of alcohol got off with an easy penalty. The only people who ever get a pass on that kind of stuff are shitskin subhumans, cause dey wuz good boyz and they didn know no better.
I hate stoners and hippies and other faggots too, but what you're saying makes no sense. There is no precedence for it. Penalties on substance abuse in this country are among the most severe that we have.
>>115108
Will legalizing it really help all that much? Sure, there'll be fewer people in jail, and a few fewer people will die from opioid addiction, but is it worth watching our society degrade further? Watching these assholes and idiots get a hold of the stuff and become absolute wastes to society? And how much will legalizing it actually help? Alcohol is legal. Smoking is legal. People still die from both of them, firsthand and secondhand.
Will legalizing it really help all that much? Sure, there'll be fewer people in jail, and a few fewer people will die from opioid addiction, but is it worth watching our society degrade further? Watching these assholes and idiots get a hold of the stuff and become absolute wastes to society? And how much will legalizing it actually help? Alcohol is legal. Smoking is legal. People still die from both of them, firsthand and secondhand.
File (): 96D55E9E361A3A1F205FE7A198499A43-317177.jpg (309.7 KB, 2048x1536, justin-trudeau.jpg)
dude weed lmao
>>115138
That's such a slippery slope. The U.S' cannabis consumption rate is already higher than most coutries with data and certainly higher than here in "Weedland" Canada.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_cannabis_use_by_country
If America could degenerate with its use of this drug, it already long has. Its use is comparative to that of Italy (14- points), which has legalised medicinal marinuana. The least of Italy's problems are marijuana.
What's worse with your case is that not only is your moral grandstanding on weak grounds, you acknowledge the benefits of your opposing position!
And, people say facts over feelings.
That's such a slippery slope. The U.S' cannabis consumption rate is already higher than most coutries with data and certainly higher than here in "Weedland" Canada.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_cannabis_use_by_country
If America could degenerate with its use of this drug, it already long has. Its use is comparative to that of Italy (14- points), which has legalised medicinal marinuana. The least of Italy's problems are marijuana.
What's worse with your case is that not only is your moral grandstanding on weak grounds, you acknowledge the benefits of your opposing position!
And, people say facts over feelings.
>>115132
Quick google search proves you wrong here anon. From what I can find penalty of intoxicated manslaughter can be around 20 years. Meanwhile, murder can get you life. But I guess you can mistake 20 years for life as the drugs may reduce your life to that long.
But in all seriousness, the penalty is obviously not tough enough, or people will get it through their thick skulls not to do drugs in public settings where people can get hurt. But I am wondering if you think the same. You argue that the penalty is extremely high. Is that because you want it lowered? Do you want people that abuse drugs and kill to get less jail time? I’m curious to know. Maybe you think we are doing everything we can and there is nothing that needs change here.
The fact remains that people that kill while intoxicated get off easier. Thereby, what I said was true, they get off easy, in comparison. What you said what blatantly false. The laws needs to change, in my opinion. I want to see tougher laws to punish those that step out of line. You can have your drugs if I know that the law will hopefully deter people from abusing them and wind up killing the innocent. And if not, that the law will see to it that those people, that chose to abuse, will be properly punished and not released at a drastically reduce sentence in comparison to actual murder.
Quick google search proves you wrong here anon. From what I can find penalty of intoxicated manslaughter can be around 20 years. Meanwhile, murder can get you life. But I guess you can mistake 20 years for life as the drugs may reduce your life to that long.
But in all seriousness, the penalty is obviously not tough enough, or people will get it through their thick skulls not to do drugs in public settings where people can get hurt. But I am wondering if you think the same. You argue that the penalty is extremely high. Is that because you want it lowered? Do you want people that abuse drugs and kill to get less jail time? I’m curious to know. Maybe you think we are doing everything we can and there is nothing that needs change here.
The fact remains that people that kill while intoxicated get off easier. Thereby, what I said was true, they get off easy, in comparison. What you said what blatantly false. The laws needs to change, in my opinion. I want to see tougher laws to punish those that step out of line. You can have your drugs if I know that the law will hopefully deter people from abusing them and wind up killing the innocent. And if not, that the law will see to it that those people, that chose to abuse, will be properly punished and not released at a drastically reduce sentence in comparison to actual murder.
>>115118
so that they don't kill themselves with opioids, and what the hell are you talking about are you shilling for the pharmaceutical industry? Marijuana can be used to treat pain from almost any source, cancer, depression, epilepsy, and has been studied in the treatment of ADHD and it can be processed to make paper and rope. Explain to me why the government can tell a person what they can and can't grow in their own garden and why we should support the (((pharmaceutical industry)))
so that they don't kill themselves with opioids, and what the hell are you talking about are you shilling for the pharmaceutical industry? Marijuana can be used to treat pain from almost any source, cancer, depression, epilepsy, and has been studied in the treatment of ADHD and it can be processed to make paper and rope. Explain to me why the government can tell a person what they can and can't grow in their own garden and why we should support the (((pharmaceutical industry)))
>>115138
again this comes back to the prohibition, the idea that it sees less use now than if it was legalized is baseless, it might see more widespread use but in smaller quantities. In general making something that's easy to obtain illegal doesn't stop people from using it illegally.
again this comes back to the prohibition, the idea that it sees less use now than if it was legalized is baseless, it might see more widespread use but in smaller quantities. In general making something that's easy to obtain illegal doesn't stop people from using it illegally.
File (): B1ADBF1B298C7D2EEAC3163AC517E90F-936312.png (914.4 KB, 610x1060, 87268893-55AF-4A12-A275-55….png)
>>115184
Did you not read what I said? I said I am not arguing the ban of drugs! I wouldn’t personally mind it, but that’s my viewpoint. I know that there are good things that can be done with them, but I want to see the misuse and abuse that leads to death of innocent people punished more severely.
Did you not read what I said? I said I am not arguing the ban of drugs! I wouldn’t personally mind it, but that’s my viewpoint. I know that there are good things that can be done with them, but I want to see the misuse and abuse that leads to death of innocent people punished more severely.
>>115186
start with alcohol then, it's not like I'm pro-misuse and abuse but creating these sorts of ridiculous unenforceable laws weakens the impact of the law itself. Do you imagine that law enforcement doesn't treat heroin severely? look at all that's accomplished. Before you simply list off your intentions consider the actual consequences of what you're suggesting by referencing similar examples from history.
start with alcohol then, it's not like I'm pro-misuse and abuse but creating these sorts of ridiculous unenforceable laws weakens the impact of the law itself. Do you imagine that law enforcement doesn't treat heroin severely? look at all that's accomplished. Before you simply list off your intentions consider the actual consequences of what you're suggesting by referencing similar examples from history.
>>115187
Unenforceable? When the person is picked up by the police for killing someone, that’s when the higher penalty kicks in. I’m not saying patrol around looking for drugs, I’m saying once the crime of manslaughter has been committed, then they get life or death sentence. Simple, but effective way to get rid of those that misuse the freedom of having drugs, at least to me. If I abuse my right to have a gun and kill innocent people, then I should get the death penalty. If you use drugs in a way that puts you in the situation that kills people, same thing.
I hope you understand I’m not for rounding up people that have drugs just because (though it doesn’t change my mind on how stupid drugs are) but I’m all for increasing the laws in place that punish murder done by people that should have used the drugs in the proper way.
Unenforceable? When the person is picked up by the police for killing someone, that’s when the higher penalty kicks in. I’m not saying patrol around looking for drugs, I’m saying once the crime of manslaughter has been committed, then they get life or death sentence. Simple, but effective way to get rid of those that misuse the freedom of having drugs, at least to me. If I abuse my right to have a gun and kill innocent people, then I should get the death penalty. If you use drugs in a way that puts you in the situation that kills people, same thing.
I hope you understand I’m not for rounding up people that have drugs just because (though it doesn’t change my mind on how stupid drugs are) but I’m all for increasing the laws in place that punish murder done by people that should have used the drugs in the proper way.
>>115188
I mean we should have a strict penalty for killing regardless, if anything you get a lesser charge for killing under the influence of something like alcohol iirc
I mean we should have a strict penalty for killing regardless, if anything you get a lesser charge for killing under the influence of something like alcohol iirc
>>115189
That’s what I have been saying. I am against legalization of drugs unless we get these penalties increased to if it the same, close to other crimes. Assault and manslaughter shouldn’t be reduced because you used a drug. I want people to have the freedom to use the drug, but I want these crimes to be less common place, deterred by heavy sentences.
Then there is the argument of illegal drugs causing crimes, but I guess that is an argument for another time.
That’s what I have been saying. I am against legalization of drugs unless we get these penalties increased to if it the same, close to other crimes. Assault and manslaughter shouldn’t be reduced because you used a drug. I want people to have the freedom to use the drug, but I want these crimes to be less common place, deterred by heavy sentences.
Then there is the argument of illegal drugs causing crimes, but I guess that is an argument for another time.
>>115192
and that's why I'm saying start with alchohol. Also what does preventing legalization actually accomplish here? because it definitely doesn't keep people from using, or for that matter misusing it. These seem like two separate issues and it makes no sense to tie them together. If anything thrill seekers and such are more likely to misuse it without legalization and legalization would decrease the misuse of more serious drugs like opioids. We can fix the laws regarding punishment of under influence crimes after legalization
and that's why I'm saying start with alchohol. Also what does preventing legalization actually accomplish here? because it definitely doesn't keep people from using, or for that matter misusing it. These seem like two separate issues and it makes no sense to tie them together. If anything thrill seekers and such are more likely to misuse it without legalization and legalization would decrease the misuse of more serious drugs like opioids. We can fix the laws regarding punishment of under influence crimes after legalization
>>115194
I highly doubt that. Once they are all legal, people will be less willing to increase the penalty, unless things get really bad. From my point of view, we need to be like Trump here and make a good deal. People get their drugs and people that misuse them get higher sentences. I’m quite sure that after legalization, all attempts to add to the severity of the punishments will be portrayed as attacks on all that use drugs. This will effectively shut down the reasonable suggestion to make murder the same as murder with drugs in your system, life or death sentence.
I can see where your coming from, but to secure what I want to see happen, I am against legalization.
I highly doubt that. Once they are all legal, people will be less willing to increase the penalty, unless things get really bad. From my point of view, we need to be like Trump here and make a good deal. People get their drugs and people that misuse them get higher sentences. I’m quite sure that after legalization, all attempts to add to the severity of the punishments will be portrayed as attacks on all that use drugs. This will effectively shut down the reasonable suggestion to make murder the same as murder with drugs in your system, life or death sentence.
I can see where your coming from, but to secure what I want to see happen, I am against legalization.
>>115195
anon you can't real politic me with this kind of bullshit you think I haven't see our congress men pull this "I'm not going to take action on this issue until we address this tangentially related issue" you're making the same nonsense argument tht the left has backed the republicans into with healthcare and now they can't repeal obamacare unless they replace it at the same time. There's no reason we can't do things one at a time and there's no particular reason legislative action on these two issues should be tied together in the way you suggest, you're just being obtuse as a substitute for an argument against legalization specifically by ignoring the potential benefits in regard to the problems opioid crisis and the pharmaceutical industry for the sake of this weird moral stance you've taken on murder under the influence which we don't have even in regard to existing legal substances like alchohol
anon you can't real politic me with this kind of bullshit you think I haven't see our congress men pull this "I'm not going to take action on this issue until we address this tangentially related issue" you're making the same nonsense argument tht the left has backed the republicans into with healthcare and now they can't repeal obamacare unless they replace it at the same time. There's no reason we can't do things one at a time and there's no particular reason legislative action on these two issues should be tied together in the way you suggest, you're just being obtuse as a substitute for an argument against legalization specifically by ignoring the potential benefits in regard to the problems opioid crisis and the pharmaceutical industry for the sake of this weird moral stance you've taken on murder under the influence which we don't have even in regard to existing legal substances like alchohol
>>115197
Oh well, looks like I can’t convince you. If drugs are that important to you, go right ahead and see where this takes us. I don’t see how asking for tougher punishments for the laws already in place is such a deal breaker for you, but oh well. You didn’t convince me either, so I guess we are in stalemate for the time being.
But keep explaining so maybe I can see your view, or keep calling my ideas bullshit, I’m getting a good laugh at the overreaction to my views.
Oh well, looks like I can’t convince you. If drugs are that important to you, go right ahead and see where this takes us. I don’t see how asking for tougher punishments for the laws already in place is such a deal breaker for you, but oh well. You didn’t convince me either, so I guess we are in stalemate for the time being.
But keep explaining so maybe I can see your view, or keep calling my ideas bullshit, I’m getting a good laugh at the overreaction to my views.
>>115208
I just don't see how it has to be a requirement and I think opioid addiction and related deaths and taking profits away from the corrupt pharmaceutical industry is way more important than the occasional drug related murder, I don't have the statistics on hand but I'm willing to bet that more people die every year in relation to opioid overdose rather than anything to do with marijuana, and again the issue of enforcement regarding crimes under the influence of substances could be addressed now with broad legislation prompted by alcohol abuse or after legalization. It seems to me that the issues aren't as connected as you make them out to be and connecting them actually makes both more difficult to accomplish as the people that support legalization would oppose the stricter enforcement and the people that support stricter enforcement are probably many of the same that oppose legalization. Rather than an effort to address both issues tying them together like you suggest would ensure a quagmire of opposition preventing action on either
I just don't see how it has to be a requirement and I think opioid addiction and related deaths and taking profits away from the corrupt pharmaceutical industry is way more important than the occasional drug related murder, I don't have the statistics on hand but I'm willing to bet that more people die every year in relation to opioid overdose rather than anything to do with marijuana, and again the issue of enforcement regarding crimes under the influence of substances could be addressed now with broad legislation prompted by alcohol abuse or after legalization. It seems to me that the issues aren't as connected as you make them out to be and connecting them actually makes both more difficult to accomplish as the people that support legalization would oppose the stricter enforcement and the people that support stricter enforcement are probably many of the same that oppose legalization. Rather than an effort to address both issues tying them together like you suggest would ensure a quagmire of opposition preventing action on either
>>115211
It’s just to me important to push for this. I have seen the small towns go to hell all around me. I want to crush the opioid problem, but it sounds like choosing a different poison to fix it. All the drug abuse going on where I live, I personally want them all destroyed. I know that isn’t helpful to everyone, so I’m willing to compromise to get drugs legal if I see something in it to curb it just a little, before more lives are ruined. It’s just personal problems in my community that the issue is connected.
It’s just to me important to push for this. I have seen the small towns go to hell all around me. I want to crush the opioid problem, but it sounds like choosing a different poison to fix it. All the drug abuse going on where I live, I personally want them all destroyed. I know that isn’t helpful to everyone, so I’m willing to compromise to get drugs legal if I see something in it to curb it just a little, before more lives are ruined. It’s just personal problems in my community that the issue is connected.
>>115230
Just because I fear the second bill to curb the abuse a little would never come with complete legalization up front. I don’t know if that will be the case, just my concern. We will see what happens.
Just because I fear the second bill to curb the abuse a little would never come with complete legalization up front. I don’t know if that will be the case, just my concern. We will see what happens.
>>115233
then why don't you push for it the other way use things like drunk driving and such to prompt a broad bill regarding punishment for crimes committed while intoxicated. My point is there's no reason to tie these two pieces of legislation together arbitrarily, and it will just make both harder to pass then either would alone
then why don't you push for it the other way use things like drunk driving and such to prompt a broad bill regarding punishment for crimes committed while intoxicated. My point is there's no reason to tie these two pieces of legislation together arbitrarily, and it will just make both harder to pass then either would alone
>>115180
Manslaughter and murder are two different crimes, you can't even compare the two. That's the craziest shit I've ever heard, guy. You're gonna look at DUI law, the war on drugs, and all the lobbying groups out there that influence legislation and constantly campaign at the public to demonize alcohol and tell me that you're gonna get off, for the same crime, with a lesser sentence so long as your drunk? That's madness. Do you just want every case of manslaughter to be charged as murder so long as the guy doing it was under the influence? Is that what you're getting at? Isn't that pretty much the case all the time anyway?
>I want to see tougher laws to punish those that step out of line.
It would seem to me that this is more indicative of your motive.
Manslaughter and murder are two different crimes, you can't even compare the two. That's the craziest shit I've ever heard, guy. You're gonna look at DUI law, the war on drugs, and all the lobbying groups out there that influence legislation and constantly campaign at the public to demonize alcohol and tell me that you're gonna get off, for the same crime, with a lesser sentence so long as your drunk? That's madness. Do you just want every case of manslaughter to be charged as murder so long as the guy doing it was under the influence? Is that what you're getting at? Isn't that pretty much the case all the time anyway?
>I want to see tougher laws to punish those that step out of line.
It would seem to me that this is more indicative of your motive.
>>115279
>this is more of your motive
Kek. Surprised to see that on a /pol/ spin off?
>can’t compare these crimes
>you want manslaughter to have murder charges?
>don’t they already?
Thus you argue they are different but already get the same penalty. But if that is true, then they just about are the same in all but name. Then why are you so mad? They can be compared, you just did.
And they do get different charges. Just take a look sometime. There are cases of intoxicated manslaughter getting life or death penalties, but the base of the two are very different, with intoxicated manslaughter getting, under normal conditions, around 20 years.
But calm down. Maybe this sounds crazy, but people that have killed people due to choosing to impair themselves, on purpose mind you, might not be the best people to return to society. Maybe that’s just me, but I don’t know. What do you think we should do? I’m curious.
>this is more of your motive
Kek. Surprised to see that on a /pol/ spin off?
>can’t compare these crimes
>you want manslaughter to have murder charges?
>don’t they already?
Thus you argue they are different but already get the same penalty. But if that is true, then they just about are the same in all but name. Then why are you so mad? They can be compared, you just did.
And they do get different charges. Just take a look sometime. There are cases of intoxicated manslaughter getting life or death penalties, but the base of the two are very different, with intoxicated manslaughter getting, under normal conditions, around 20 years.
But calm down. Maybe this sounds crazy, but people that have killed people due to choosing to impair themselves, on purpose mind you, might not be the best people to return to society. Maybe that’s just me, but I don’t know. What do you think we should do? I’m curious.
>>115290
I don't understand why we are even arguing here.
Being intoxicated and hurting people is bad. No shit. You should be punished for it. Really. There is no disagreement there. We already do punish them severely, by charging intoxicated manslaughter as murder. You guys are just impotently raging against the injustice of the world.
I give up. I'm not gonna argue with your rhetoric. I don't fucking care. We don't even have anything to beef about.
I don't understand why we are even arguing here.
Being intoxicated and hurting people is bad. No shit. You should be punished for it. Really. There is no disagreement there. We already do punish them severely, by charging intoxicated manslaughter as murder. You guys are just impotently raging against the injustice of the world.
I give up. I'm not gonna argue with your rhetoric. I don't fucking care. We don't even have anything to beef about.
>>115296
Don’t feel bad anon, I didn’t mean to get you upset. I know I can get obnoxious at times. I just hate drugs in general, and I know most people are either indifferent or for them, and I just lose my cool from time to time about it.
Don’t feel bad anon, I didn’t mean to get you upset. I know I can get obnoxious at times. I just hate drugs in general, and I know most people are either indifferent or for them, and I just lose my cool from time to time about it.
I don't enjoy being high, but injesting a small amounts of thc in the morning is the only way I can make it through my day relatively "normally".
I should be medicated for a few different mental illness but I hate Jewish pharmaceuticals.
I should be medicated for a few different mental illness but I hate Jewish pharmaceuticals.
>>118980
Definitely understandable.
I’m sorry to hear that you have some illness though. You doing alright?
Definitely understandable.
I’m sorry to hear that you have some illness though. You doing alright?
File (): 6B91E08AA21E62E65A627D6801969F74-460517.gif (449.7 KB, 380x380, IMG_20170713_234508_568.gif)
File (): F872CB10C2427E7CDD4B64F1BF55FE6F-279773.jpg (273.2 KB, 771x526, 1493444433802.jpg)
>>119272
>selling pot after it's legalized
>not creating your own miniature textiles industry by creating fabrics out of hemp
>selling pot after it's legalized
>not creating your own miniature textiles industry by creating fabrics out of hemp
File (): 1E80D165243F86D8E04071013CBF71DF-45935.jpg (44.9 KB, 600x335, trudildo.jpg)
>>119371
I once saw this pic that claimed Jews are the reason why Pot is banned. Pot is easily grown and hemp, cannabis oil, etc can replace a lot of highly-marketable products made and sold by by jew-owned companies.
Anyone here have that pic?
I once saw this pic that claimed Jews are the reason why Pot is banned. Pot is easily grown and hemp, cannabis oil, etc can replace a lot of highly-marketable products made and sold by by jew-owned companies.
Anyone here have that pic?
>>119527
By your argument the 37 forms of degenerate jewish-run overcriminalization that have appeared since before Prohibition are perfectly fine "BECAUSE THE LAW IS LAW, GOY!" Nice strawman, shabbo.
By your argument the 37 forms of degenerate jewish-run overcriminalization that have appeared since before Prohibition are perfectly fine "BECAUSE THE LAW IS LAW, GOY!" Nice strawman, shabbo.
>>119528
By your logic the 682 billion forms of degenerate Jewish-run corporatism and crony-capitalism that have appeared since before the founding of the United States are perfectly fine "BECAUSE GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY SHEKELS, GOY!" Nice strawman, faget.
>>119546
Regulation would help, if we absolutely have to leagalize pot.
By your logic the 682 billion forms of degenerate Jewish-run corporatism and crony-capitalism that have appeared since before the founding of the United States are perfectly fine "BECAUSE GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY SHEKELS, GOY!" Nice strawman, faget.
>>119546
Regulation would help, if we absolutely have to leagalize pot.
>>119546
That would be a regulatory action which conflicts with the right of freedom. Resorting to cherry picking specific strains increases costs, stress, and furthers the spread of governmental degeneracy as a whole. Either you take the safer, less addictive, and overall easier economic reintroduction, or you slap giant fines and jail/prison sentences on EVERYONE that dares to resist kikery. In this situation, middle ground is essentially No Mare's Land, for all the evils that entails.
>>119549
You are advocating that ignoring the miseries caused by the jewish run pharmaceutical industry, i.e.: highly addictive synthetic and semi-synthetic derivatives of opium, are good "because the law is law". You are no longer strawmanning, you are shilling for dictatorial edicts against the common man. Fuck off, shabbo.
That would be a regulatory action which conflicts with the right of freedom. Resorting to cherry picking specific strains increases costs, stress, and furthers the spread of governmental degeneracy as a whole. Either you take the safer, less addictive, and overall easier economic reintroduction, or you slap giant fines and jail/prison sentences on EVERYONE that dares to resist kikery. In this situation, middle ground is essentially No Mare's Land, for all the evils that entails.
>>119549
You are advocating that ignoring the miseries caused by the jewish run pharmaceutical industry, i.e.: highly addictive synthetic and semi-synthetic derivatives of opium, are good "because the law is law". You are no longer strawmanning, you are shilling for dictatorial edicts against the common man. Fuck off, shabbo.
>>119551
A strong central government can regulate against the opiates used by the pharmaceutical industry. A weak government can't do anything.
You are acting as if all authority is the same as submitting to the Jews, and in doing so you misrepresent our arguments by acting as if you are an authority on what an authoritarian government would do. Cease this at once, faget.
A strong central government can regulate against the opiates used by the pharmaceutical industry. A weak government can't do anything.
You are acting as if all authority is the same as submitting to the Jews, and in doing so you misrepresent our arguments by acting as if you are an authority on what an authoritarian government would do. Cease this at once, faget.
>>119549
A simple regulation wouldn't impair the market all too much as long as it is proper and nationwide. Such as bans on flavoured tobacco, most would not notice it directly. Currently, the US has not staved off a drug culture with making cannabis illegal, however an attempt to make strains less potent could help. I think it is a simple caveat to regulate THC, but I see it as a chance for opposition to marijuana to move a bit more on the pro-cannabis side while keeping their principles of anti-degeneracy. It could be said that the US could just legalise medical marijuana, and the base just ignores degeneracy and markets on a whole. Since abuse is illegal and the market is concerned within the health sector.
A simple regulation wouldn't impair the market all too much as long as it is proper and nationwide. Such as bans on flavoured tobacco, most would not notice it directly. Currently, the US has not staved off a drug culture with making cannabis illegal, however an attempt to make strains less potent could help. I think it is a simple caveat to regulate THC, but I see it as a chance for opposition to marijuana to move a bit more on the pro-cannabis side while keeping their principles of anti-degeneracy. It could be said that the US could just legalise medical marijuana, and the base just ignores degeneracy and markets on a whole. Since abuse is illegal and the market is concerned within the health sector.
>>119553
Authority or freedom, shill. Pick one and only one. Stop trying to slide the discussion into judeo-communistic fascism.
Authority or freedom, shill. Pick one and only one. Stop trying to slide the discussion into judeo-communistic fascism.
>>119559
>judeo-communistic fascism
Anon, both you and your opponent have devolved into debauchery, but yours has become worse.
>judeo-communistic fascism
Anon, both you and your opponent have devolved into debauchery, but yours has become worse.
>>119562
Do you know what doublethink is? That is the purpose of all judeo-communist infiltration: creating controlled opposition to support (((their))) goals. They do not care how the means or emotional responses are created, only that they fulfill the intended function for Pissrael's continued existence. No modern argument exists that does not factor in judeo-fascism as a means to rule a society.
Do you know what doublethink is? That is the purpose of all judeo-communist infiltration: creating controlled opposition to support (((their))) goals. They do not care how the means or emotional responses are created, only that they fulfill the intended function for Pissrael's continued existence. No modern argument exists that does not factor in judeo-fascism as a means to rule a society.
>>119559
You took my correct characterization of pot as degenerate and turned it into an argument about government control. From where I'm standing, you are the one sliding the discussion.
But, to answer your question, I'll choose authority. White authority, run by my fellow White, Christian Americans. You can go bow to the kikes in your own Anarchist non-state, and see what happens when there is no barrier between you, and (((them))).
You took my correct characterization of pot as degenerate and turned it into an argument about government control. From where I'm standing, you are the one sliding the discussion.
But, to answer your question, I'll choose authority. White authority, run by my fellow White, Christian Americans. You can go bow to the kikes in your own Anarchist non-state, and see what happens when there is no barrier between you, and (((them))).
>>119564
Assuming an underlying motive to opponents is paranoid. Especially when what you're projecting they support has not been said by them or even hinted at. Judeo-communist-fascism" is just an amalgamation of buzzwords that you seem to throw around, so that all nuances are turned into conspiracy.
Assuming an underlying motive to opponents is paranoid. Especially when what you're projecting they support has not been said by them or even hinted at. Judeo-communist-fascism" is just an amalgamation of buzzwords that you seem to throw around, so that all nuances are turned into conspiracy.
>>119527
The problem is, it's gonna get legalized.
So why not make a pretty penny while it's happening?
I hate the idea of it getting legalized, I really do, but sadly it's gonna happen.
The problem is, it's gonna get legalized.
So why not make a pretty penny while it's happening?
I hate the idea of it getting legalized, I really do, but sadly it's gonna happen.
File (): 04EEF2FD5C12EA70AB7B924536851678-51824.png (50.6 KB, 1302x1296, kBJHN9p.png)
>>119566
>Assuming an underlying motive to opponents is paranoid
Haven't you even taken Shilling 101? Go fuck about on 4pol or Leddit if you're going to be that obvious. Every time the rights of hundreds of millions of people are at stake, profiteering and domineering are givens.
>>119565
>White, Christian Americans
Sup, Shekelwitz? Pic related.
>Assuming an underlying motive to opponents is paranoid
Haven't you even taken Shilling 101? Go fuck about on 4pol or Leddit if you're going to be that obvious. Every time the rights of hundreds of millions of people are at stake, profiteering and domineering are givens.
>>119565
>White, Christian Americans
Sup, Shekelwitz? Pic related.
File (): 242855B062705D218640D5DC0F038879-3369192.jpg (3.2 MB, 4500x2884, 1511331663679.jpg)
File (): 743AE9F6811A7111CF4F01FCB19DBCEC-553083.jpg (540.1 KB, 1008x1580, 1494195587848.jpg)
File (): 12A69AD494667705819FCF5CEB728AB1-495762.png (484.1 KB, 500x1200, 1494198283877.png)
>>119565
First, you fail to realize that your religion and those like it were created to be infiltrated from the top down. You present a push for further criminalization of an emotionally charged overblown subject matter, one that will aid in blunting the pharmaceutical industry pushes for further opiod abuse as well as the countless toxic pharmaceuticals in use, likewise it will ease the suffering of fellow humans. Second, at the same time you are decrying jewish authority, that is, controlled opposition, which rules over both sides of the argument. You are emotionally invested in this argument, making your view on this hypocritical to the extreme.
Third, point out the exact statement in which anarchy was advocated.
>>119566
Whom owns the top 30 pharmaceutical corporations? Whom likewise owns the entire banking industry? Whom has the ability to buy, sell, and trade politicians at will? The "conspiracy" you are attempting to deny into being a hypothesis has been public fact. In 1913, Andrew Melon aided in the creation of the interconnected chemical-textile-pharmaceutical industry by first pushing for the illegalization of marijuana. By 1921, the now-medical cartel pushed for criminalization of medical treatments that could not meet (((their))) standards. In ethical terms, this is called an industrial monopoly, one which is used for political profiteering on the suffering of human beings. Once the stranglehold of criminalization is broken it will cause a domino effect, greatly reducing the net effect of political and social manipulation by jewISH parasites and their allies.
First, you fail to realize that your religion and those like it were created to be infiltrated from the top down. You present a push for further criminalization of an emotionally charged overblown subject matter, one that will aid in blunting the pharmaceutical industry pushes for further opiod abuse as well as the countless toxic pharmaceuticals in use, likewise it will ease the suffering of fellow humans. Second, at the same time you are decrying jewish authority, that is, controlled opposition, which rules over both sides of the argument. You are emotionally invested in this argument, making your view on this hypocritical to the extreme.
Third, point out the exact statement in which anarchy was advocated.
>>119566
Whom owns the top 30 pharmaceutical corporations? Whom likewise owns the entire banking industry? Whom has the ability to buy, sell, and trade politicians at will? The "conspiracy" you are attempting to deny into being a hypothesis has been public fact. In 1913, Andrew Melon aided in the creation of the interconnected chemical-textile-pharmaceutical industry by first pushing for the illegalization of marijuana. By 1921, the now-medical cartel pushed for criminalization of medical treatments that could not meet (((their))) standards. In ethical terms, this is called an industrial monopoly, one which is used for political profiteering on the suffering of human beings. Once the stranglehold of criminalization is broken it will cause a domino effect, greatly reducing the net effect of political and social manipulation by jewISH parasites and their allies.
>>119602
Why does everyone assume that an authoritarian, nationalist government WOULDN'T regulate against opiates used in pharmaceuticals? Your entire argument rests on the idea that such a government wouldn't, when it would be in the best interests of such a government to regulate against both marijuana, AND opiates.
As I am calling for the regulation of both, I am on a position that no Jew would advocate for. The world isn't entirely made of yes-or-no questions. Multiple solutions are available on most issues. There is a reason National Socialism and Fascism is known as "The Third Way".
And we're on one of the most radical right-wing sites on the Internet. The more moderate Paleo-Conservatism and Minarchism have seemingly disappeared from dialogue. If you aren't in the nationalist camp, you're likely in the anarchist camp.
Why does everyone assume that an authoritarian, nationalist government WOULDN'T regulate against opiates used in pharmaceuticals? Your entire argument rests on the idea that such a government wouldn't, when it would be in the best interests of such a government to regulate against both marijuana, AND opiates.
As I am calling for the regulation of both, I am on a position that no Jew would advocate for. The world isn't entirely made of yes-or-no questions. Multiple solutions are available on most issues. There is a reason National Socialism and Fascism is known as "The Third Way".
And we're on one of the most radical right-wing sites on the Internet. The more moderate Paleo-Conservatism and Minarchism have seemingly disappeared from dialogue. If you aren't in the nationalist camp, you're likely in the anarchist camp.
File (): 6C53D93E03CBE8A63A91424629F4D03F-79513.png (77.6 KB, 1302x1296, 4CAE626D-9924-4664-B94F-1F….png)
>>119602
>>119599
>
This doesn't convince me of anything. I already support marijuana legalisation overall, however I'm willing to compromise a regulation of THC. Which frankly wouldn't strip anyone of their basic rights, and suggesting otherwise is obfuscating definitions. I condemned your behaviour earlier, because dialogue had broken down. I'm aware of the stakes and corporate interests, but when considering what hurts the latter, there's room for more than opposition if the issue is already addressed.
>>119599
>
This doesn't convince me of anything. I already support marijuana legalisation overall, however I'm willing to compromise a regulation of THC. Which frankly wouldn't strip anyone of their basic rights, and suggesting otherwise is obfuscating definitions. I condemned your behaviour earlier, because dialogue had broken down. I'm aware of the stakes and corporate interests, but when considering what hurts the latter, there's room for more than opposition if the issue is already addressed.
>>119690
>I condemned your behaviour earlier, because dialogue had broken down.
Nigga, this is the FIRST reply I've given to you on this thread. What are you talking about?
Also, condemning people? Get off your high pony.
>I'm willing to compromise a regulation of THC
Why compromise on what's already our human right? Why are you supporting a right getting back into the hands of the governing body and then dumping people into gridlock for another two decades?
These are obviously rhetorical questions.
>I condemned your behaviour earlier, because dialogue had broken down.
Nigga, this is the FIRST reply I've given to you on this thread. What are you talking about?
Also, condemning people? Get off your high pony.
>I'm willing to compromise a regulation of THC
Why compromise on what's already our human right? Why are you supporting a right getting back into the hands of the governing body and then dumping people into gridlock for another two decades?
These are obviously rhetorical questions.
66 replies | 14 files | 1 UUIDs | Archived