Marijuana legalization: LESS government?

[aCultureWarrior]

So you made a mistake over the hemp argument? Don't worry, we won't hold it against you much.

So, why DID you object to hemp being grown for fibre, as happened everywhere else in the world once they realised it was harmless?

Surely you approve of the withdrawal of federal enforcement agencies from a legitimate business?

I believe I asked you a question gc:

Did I ask you already if you're a dope smoker* gc?

*Includes using a sissy vaporizer

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3782360&postcount=316

I noticed that you didn't care to talk about why 300,000 plus dopers in Seattle call their drug fest a "hempfest" either.

Drop the façade that the pro dope crowd uses to get federal legislation changed on hemp and dope smoking laws. You might fool a few others here, but certainly not me.

 

[gcthomas]

I believe I asked you a question gc:

Did I ask you already if you're a dope smoker* gc?

*Includes using a sissy vaporizer

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3782360&postcount=316

I noticed that you didn't care to talk about why 300,000 plus dopers in Seattle call their drug fest a "hempfest" either.

Drop the façade that the pro dope crowd uses to get federal legislation changed on hemp and dope smoking laws. You might fool a few others here, but certainly not me.

Anything to switch away from the original issue you raised, which was the ban on industrial farming of hemp fibre. I believe I, and others, asked you first.

If you don't know why you are against it, just say so: at least you will have been honest and open about your opinion. How do you hope to persuade anyone without even the hint of a rational reason?

Or don't you do rational reasons?

:chuckle:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I believe I asked you a question gc:

Did I ask you already if you're a dope smoker* gc?

*Includes using a sissy vaporizer

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...&postcount=316

I noticed that you didn't care to talk about why 300,000 plus dopers in Seattle call their drug fest a "hempfest" either.

Drop the façade that the pro dope crowd uses to get federal legislation changed on hemp and dope smoking laws. You might fool a few others here, but certainly not me.

Anything to switch away from the original issue you raised, which was the ban on industrial farming of hemp fibre. I believe I, and others, asked you first.

You might want to take a look at the subject title of the thread gc, it has nothing to do with hemp farming.

But go ahead, tell us how inconvenienced you've been (i.e. your life has been a living Hell) because all the hemp products that you use on a daily basis have to be imported into the US because of the DEA ban.

After you're finished with that very very short list (probably a non-existent list), perhaps you could answer the above questions?

After all, what's there to be ashamed of, it's only little ole harmless dope we're talking about.

 

[gcthomas]

AcW, why would I possibly want to import hemp products into the US? Hemp can be grown here legally and profitably with no effect on dope-heads at all.

I notice you still don't have a reason to retain federal government interference in a non-drug related industrial activity. You seem driven so much by your deep seated irrational hatreds and phobias that you can't think straight any more.

Will you be for banning headache tablets because they look like ecstasy tablets? Or flour due to its likeness to cocaine? Hemp looks like marijuana, so it should be banned? Childish and silly, AcW.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

AcW, why would I possibly want to import hemp products into the US? Hemp can be grown here legally and profitably with no effect on dope-heads at all.

I notice you still don't have a reason to retain federal government interference in a non-drug related industrial activity. You seem driven so much by your deep seated irrational hatreds and phobias that you can't think straight any more.

Will you be for banning headache tablets because they look like ecstasy tablets? Or flour due to its likeness to cocaine? Hemp looks like marijuana, so it should be banned? Childish and silly, AcW.

Gosh gc, had I know that asking a simple question like:

"...are you a dope smoker?" would make you get all fidgety, I might have suggested that you take a hit off of shag's sissy vaporizer to calm your nerves.

Regarding hemp:

As I suspected, you don't use hemp, and most likely never have and never will.

Enough with your facade, your game has been exposed.

 

[gcthomas]

Gosh gc, had I know that asking a simple question like:

"...are you a dope smoker?" would make you get all fidgety, I might have suggested that you take a hit off of shag's sissy vaporizer to calm your nerves.

Regarding hemp:

As I suspected, you don't use hemp, and most likely never have and never will.

Enough with your facade, your game has been exposed.

And had I known that a simple question like 'why ban hemp' would have you ducking and diving, I'd have asked it earlier.

For your information, I have already described my regular use of hemp fibre in an earlier post. Perhaps you should read more carefully before complaining.

Why do you want hemp to stay banned and have federal authorities spending most of their resources destroying feral hemp instead of tackling drug use? Legalising hemp would be a win for both of us.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Gosh gc, had I know that asking a simple question like:

"...are you a dope smoker?"

For your information, I have already described my regular use of hemp fibre in an earlier post. Perhaps you should read more carefully before complaining.

I'm sorry, but I didn't see where you described your regular use of hemp fibre in an earlier post.

Were you the one that showed a picture of a guy wearing a hat made out of hemp?

If so, have you ever had a doper attempt to light your head on fire?

Perhaps you could repost how you use hemp when you answer my questions:

"Are you a dope smoker?" and "Why do Seattle dopers call their dopefest a "hempfest" if the two aren't related?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Why do you want hemp to stay banned and have federal authorities spending most of their resources destroying feral hemp instead of tackling drug use? Legalising hemp would be a win for both of us.

Many believe what General Barry McCaffrey believes. But first, his background:

"Barry McCaffrey served in the United States Army for 32 years and retired as a four-star General. At retirement he was the most highly decorated serving General, having been awarded three Purple Heart medals for wounds received in his four combat tours – as well as twice awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the nation’s second highest award for valor. He also twice was awarded the Silver Star for valor.

In May 2010, he was honored as a Distinguished Graduate by the West Point Association of Graduates at the United States Military Academy. In 2007 he was inducted into the US Army Ranger Hall of Fame at the US Army Infantry Center, Ft. Benning, GA. . In 1992 he was awarded the State Department Superior Honor Award for the principal negotiation team for the START II Nuclear Arms Control Treaty. In 2004, Catholic University of America awarded him the James Cardinal Gibbons Medal (Highest Honor), to honor him for distinguished and meritorious service to the United States of America.

For five years after leaving the military, Barry McCaffrey served as the nation’s Cabinet Officer in charge of U.S. Drug Policy. He was confirmed for this position by unanimous vote by the U.S. Senate. For this period of public service, General McCaffrey received many honors including: the Department of Health and Human Service Lifetime Achievement Award for Extraordinary Achievements in the Field of Substance Abuse Prevention (2004), the United States Coast Guard Distinguished Public Service Award, the Norman E. Zinberg Award of the Harvard Medical School, the Federal Law Enforcement Foundation’s National Service Award, and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America Lifetime Achievement Award.

After leaving government service, Barry McCaffrey served as the Bradley Distinguished Professor of International Security Studies from January 2001 to May 2005; and then as an Adjunct Professor of International Security Studies from May 2005 to December 2010 at the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY."
http://www.mccaffreyassociates.com/?page_id=14

Now that General McCaffrey's qualifications have been established, let's see what he said during an interview with the late Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" on August 10, 1997:

MR. RUSSERT: There's an initiative at the District of Columbia...

GEN. McCAFFREY: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: ...advocating the medicinal use of marijuana.

GEN. McCAFFREY: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you support that initiative?

GEN. McCAFFREY: Oh, no, not at all. We've got a national campaign by drug legalizers, in my view, to try and use medicinal uses of drugs and legalization of hemp as a stalking horse to get in under the radar screen..."
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n296/a01.html?71864

aCW, with the help of 4-star General Barry McCaffrey, rests his case.

 

[shagster01]

Many believe what General Barry McCaffrey believes. But first, his background:

"Barry McCaffrey served in the United States Army for 32 years and retired as a four-star General. At retirement he was the most highly decorated serving General, having been awarded three Purple Heart medals for wounds received in his four combat tours – as well as twice awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the nation’s second highest award for valor. He also twice was awarded the Silver Star for valor.

In May 2010, he was honored as a Distinguished Graduate by the West Point Association of Graduates at the United States Military Academy. In 2007 he was inducted into the US Army Ranger Hall of Fame at the US Army Infantry Center, Ft. Benning, GA. . In 1992 he was awarded the State Department Superior Honor Award for the principal negotiation team for the START II Nuclear Arms Control Treaty. In 2004, Catholic University of America awarded him the James Cardinal Gibbons Medal (Highest Honor), to honor him for distinguished and meritorious service to the United States of America.

For five years after leaving the military, Barry McCaffrey served as the nation’s Cabinet Officer in charge of U.S. Drug Policy. He was confirmed for this position by unanimous vote by the U.S. Senate. For this period of public service, General McCaffrey received many honors including: the Department of Health and Human Service Lifetime Achievement Award for Extraordinary Achievements in the Field of Substance Abuse Prevention (2004), the United States Coast Guard Distinguished Public Service Award, the Norman E. Zinberg Award of the Harvard Medical School, the Federal Law Enforcement Foundation’s National Service Award, and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America Lifetime Achievement Award.

After leaving government service, Barry McCaffrey served as the Bradley Distinguished Professor of International Security Studies from January 2001 to May 2005; and then as an Adjunct Professor of International Security Studies from May 2005 to December 2010 at the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY."
http://www.mccaffreyassociates.com/?page_id=14

Now that General McCaffrey's qualifications have been established, let's see what he said during an interview with the late Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" on August 10, 1997:

MR. RUSSERT: There's an initiative at the District of Columbia...

GEN. McCAFFREY: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: ...advocating the medicinal use of marijuana.

GEN. McCAFFREY: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you support that initiative?

GEN. McCAFFREY: Oh, no, not at all. We've got a national campaign by drug legalizers, in my view, to try and use medicinal uses of drugs and legalization of hemp as a stalking horse to get in under the radar screen..."
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n296/a01.html?71864

aCW, with the help of 4-star General Barry McCaffrey, rests his case.

First off, anybody that gets paid to fight against something will obviously try to defend what he getting paid to do.

Secondly, General Barry McCaffrey was also accused of ordering his soldiers to fire on retreating and surrendering Iraqi soldiers in the first Gulf War. The accusations came from soldiers he was commanding.

Of course he was let off the hook for that once he was in Clinton's cabinet.


He sounds like one of your moral and religious guys.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

First off, anybody that gets paid to fight against something will obviously try to defend what he getting paid to do.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe he believes in what he's being paid to do doper?

Secondly, General Barry McCaffrey was also accused of ordering his soldiers to fire on retreating and surrendering Iraqi soldiers in the first Gulf War. The accusations came from soldiers he was commanding.

Well then, shame on him. I think we should strip him of all those honors (and make him clean chalk board erasers after school).

Of course he was let off the hook for that once he was in Clinton's cabinet.

But of course.

He sounds like one of your moral and religious guys.

If a pagan Libertarian doper thinks that way about McCaffery, he's definitely my kind of guy.

 

[shagster01]

Did you ever stop to think that maybe he believes in what he's being paid to do doper?

Sure, that's a common trait in the government.

Well then, shame on him. I think we should strip him of all those honors (and make him clean chalk board erasers after school).

I know this is sarcasm because you've already implied that killing people isn't as bad as growing hemp in this thread.

If a pagan Libertarian doper thinks that way about McCaffery, he's definitely my kind of guy.

Weird, because he served under and worked with baby killer Clinton. I didn't think that would be your kind of guy at all.

 

[gcthomas]

ACW, I've noticed that ALL of your arguments are ad hominem. You attack ideas that are linked to people you don't like and present as evidence people with whom you agree. When pressed for your own thoughts on the matter you resort to name calling and requests for personal information so that you can continue with ad homs without the hopeful guessing you usually indulge in.

Even if the law change supporters are odious, which you've not shown yet, and even if you can find a public figure who agrees with you that doesn't shoot retreating soldiers in the back, then you still find yourself without an argument.

I've given you good reasons to allow an industry that causes no problems anywhere in the world. I've asked for your reasoned objections. It appears you have none. I predict you will take the scoundrel's position of avoiding the discussion of the alleged harms real benefits and will resort to more puerile ad hominem attacks.

Will you step up to the plate for a reasoned argument or will you go scurrying for the low ground again? :think:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Weird, because he served under and worked with baby killer Clinton. I didn't think that would be your kind of guy at all.

You found out differently. Now don't you have a vaporizer that you need to polish (dope vaporizers need love too), as I have a couple of pro dopers that just won't answer a couple of simple questions that I asked.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

ACW, I've noticed that ALL of your arguments are ad hominem.

I've noticed that you won't answer a simple question:

"Are you a dope smoker"?

Speaking of which:

I asked my 2nd bestest friend in the whooooole wide world a couple of questions that he hasn't returned to answer.

Eran/Wizard of Oz:

Are you a dope smoker, and if your answer is no, why not?

Does the hotel that you work at have a no recreational drug policy, and if so, why do you think that is?

When you return, we can finish up talking about decriminalizing heroin, as based on your posts in the Philip Seymour Hoffman thread, it sounds like you're for it.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98964

One would think that peope with simple minds would be able to answer simple questions.

 

[WizardofOz]

aCW bites off more than he can chew

aCW bites off more than he can chew

aCW - you are such a predictable simpleton. As soon as your arguments are debunked you resort to personally accusing anyone who disagrees with your inanity.

I or anyone else disagree that homosexuality MUST be recriminalized? You accuse anyone who does of being a homosexual or supporting homosexuality.

I or anyone disagrees with current drug law? 'Must be "dopers"'

I notice how your standard doesn't apply to you. You vote for a homosexualist but that doesn't make you a homosexualist.

Was Ken Hutcherson a Libertarian? You called his words "Libertarian doctrine".

You think cigarettes should be legal but that doesn't make you a cigarette pusher. I think marijuana should be decriminalized but that makes me a "drug pusher".

You think young rape victims should be allowed the choice to abort but that doesn't make you "pro-choice".

This is why you're a hypocrite and part of why no one here takes you serious.

gcthomas said it quite well:

ACW, I've noticed that ALL of your arguments are ad hominem. You attack ideas that are linked to people you don't like and present as evidence people with whom you agree. When pressed for your own thoughts on the matter you resort to name calling and requests for personal information so that you can continue with ad homs without the hopeful guessing you usually indulge in.

Even if the law change supporters are odious, which you've not shown yet, and even if you can find a public figure who agrees with you that doesn't shoot retreating soldiers in the back, then you still find yourself without an argument.

I've given you good reasons to allow an industry that causes no problems anywhere in the world. I've asked for your reasoned objections. It appears you have none. I predict you will take the scoundrel's position of avoiding the discussion of the alleged harms real benefits and will resort to more puerile ad hominem attacks.

Will you step up to the plate for a reasoned argument or will you go scurrying for the low ground again? :think:

:thumb:

Eran/Wizard of Oz:

Are you a dope smoker,

No. I am not a "dope smoker". (This won't stop you from lying and repeatedly claiming I am).

aCW - are you a dope smoker? When is the last time you've smoked dope?
aCW - do you use tobacco?
aCW - have you ever engaged in homosexual activity?

My answer to those questions is no as well, BTW

and if your answer is no, why not?

Smoking isn't healthy. That goes for pot, cigarettes, cigars, crack, etc.

Does the hotel that you work at have a no recreational drug policy, and if so, why do you think that is?

We have no policy about what employees do other when they are at work.

Where do you work and what is their policy?

I don't even need specifics. Your occupation is as a, what?

When you return, we can finish up talking about decriminalizing heroin, as based on your posts in the Philip Seymour Hoffman thread, it sounds like you're for it.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98964

Ah, the thread where you confused legalize with decriminalize. That thread?

One would think that peope with simple minds would be able to answer simple questions.

What's your excuse for dodging so many simple question? :juggle:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

No. I am not a "dope smoker".
Smoking isn't healthy. That goes for pot, cigarettes, cigars, crack, etc.

Yet you're for the legalization of marijuana, and based on your posts in the Philip Seymour Hoffman thread, the decriminalization of heroin (i.e. allowing individuals to possess a certain amount of heroin legally like they do in your beloved Portugal).

Do you not care about the health of others Eran, especially when it comes to harmful narcotics? (This is where Eran goes on an anti smoking rant, comparing chewing tobacco with heroin, crack cocaine and pot).

We have no policy about what employees do other when they are at work.

Could you tell me the name of the chain that you work for, as I highly doubt that. I really don't think that any employer would allow heroin, crack cocaine or marijuana users to work for them just because they're using those harmful recreational drugs while they're away from work.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I found this website that does drug tests for companies.

I see that Best Western, one of the biggest, if not the biggest hotel chain in the world does drug tests on their applicants.

http://www.testclear.com/dtcompanies/companyDetail.aspx?CompanyID=836

I wonder why Eran?

 

[WizardofOz]

:rotfl:

Look at the avoidance. aCW wants questions answered but is far too cowardly to answer the same.

Yet you're for the legalization of marijuana

Yes, or at the very least the decriminalization. It just isn't that harmful of a drug and should be classified along with alcohol and tobacco which are both much more harmful.

Too many people are in jail or prison for what should be treated medically as an addiction like alcoholism.

and based on your posts in the Philip Seymour Hoffman thread, the decriminalization of heroin (i.e. allowing individuals to possess a certain amount of heroin legally like they do in your beloved Portugal).

I would favor decriminalization where you cannot legally possess any as anyone possessing heroin likely needs some sort of rehabilitation.

If it is state-ordered, then so be it, but keep them out of prison.

Do you not care about the health of others Eran, especially when it comes to harmful narcotics? (This is where Eran goes on an anti smoking rant, comparing chewing tobacco with heroin, crack cocaine and pot).

Yes I do.

Did you care about your friend's health when you gave him a tobacco gift certificate?

(this is where I expose you as a hypocrite pretending to care about people's health)

You don't even care about the health of your friends. Why would anyone believe that you care about the health of strangers?

Could you tell me the name of the chain that you work for, as I highly doubt that.

Nope but there isn't a franchise anyway. Independently owned and operated. I write actually wrote the employee policy/handbook here.

I really don't think that any employer would allow heroin, crack cocaine or marijuana users to work for them just because they're using those harmful recreational drugs while they're away from work.

I hope they don't get injured on the job because I would drug test immediately for any possible insurance/workman's comp case.

Other than that, we don't do random drug tests or drug test applicants although I do run criminal background checks.

aCW failed to answer (One would think that people with simple minds would be able to answer simple questions)

Or, are these not such simple questions for your to answer?

aCW - are you a dope smoker? When is the last time you've smoked dope?
aCW - do you use tobacco?
aCW - have you ever engaged in homosexual activity?
aCW - Where do you work and what is their policy?

They're not going away :chicken:

 

[WizardofOz]

Is it true gcthomas aCultureWarrior that people hiiiiiigh on dope trying to avoid answering questions take forever to type out a post?

(aCW Wizardofoz impatiently taps his toes waiting for gcthomas' pro dope aCW's alacarte reply).

 

[WizardofOz]

Gosh gc aCW, had I know that asking a simple question like:

"...are you a dope smoker?" "...are you a dope smoker?" or "have you ever engaged in homosexual activity?" would make you get all fidgety, I might have suggested that you take a hit off of shag's sissy vaporizer to calm your nerves.

Regarding hemp:

As I suspected, you don't use hemp, and most likely never have and never will.

Enough with your facade, your game has been exposed.

Will you be using tobacco in the future, aCW?