Recreational use of...

[gardener4life]

In a thread comment I did a few months ago, I told people that once people use the excuse of 'medical reasons' to pass legalization of Marijuana that recreational use would start to also follow suite because the 'door is already opened'.

Then I found this article on BBC news this morning.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42532776

Recreational marijauna use becomes legal in California.

Very soon also other things will be legal. People will start marrying their dogs and other pets. Other abominable practices will also become legal. I wouldn't be surprise if in a very short time we can't even recognize the country we live in, according to it's morality and what's legal regarding morality. But I don't think this is anything new to anyone. Others already know this. But I'm just formally unhappy about and showing the article.

[ajax]

Pretty nice leap of logic from smoking weed to marrying animals. I would suggest that the real immorality comes into play for jailing people that grow and smoke plants. It is an IMproper role of government.

Marijuana use was only made illegal in this country within the last 100 yrs. Are you suggesting prior to that we were more immoral as a country, and that by simply passing laws, making something illegal, we became more moral?

A vice perhaps, but you should understand that vices are not crimes:

“VICES are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property. In vices, the very essence of crime—that is, the design to injure the person or property of another—is
wanting.” - Lysander Spooner

Heaven forbid I discover your little vices, and move to bring the hammer of government down upon you and your household, for your own good of course.

[Sarah]

Pretty nice leap of logic from smoking weed to marrying animals. I would suggest that the real immorality comes into play for jailing people that grow and smoke plants. It is an IMproper role of government.

Marijuana use was only made illegal in this country within the last 100 yrs. Are you suggesting prior to that we were more immoral as a country, and that by simply passing laws, making something illegal, we became more moral?

A vice perhaps, but you should understand that vices are not crimes:

“VICES are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property. In vices, the very essence of crime—that is, the design to injure the person or property of another—is
wanting.” - Lysander Spooner

Heaven forbid I discover your little vices, and move to bring the hammer of government down upon you and your household, for your own good of course.

Whether it's crime or vice, it all comes down to behaviors. And even though you may think your behavior doesn't affect anyone else, it really does, because we live together as families and are continually living and working around each other. Our government is there to protect basic rights, but what if your drinking and driving takes away my life. You've just committed a crime even though you had no ill-intent. What if a parent is continually high on drugs and is not taking good care of his or her child? That child's rights are not being protected. So while I don't believe in taking by force from one person and giving to another in the name of children, I do believe in laws that control substances like drugs and alcohol, and other dangerous behaviors that can affect the lives of others in pursuing their life, liberty and happiness. And Marriage laws, that is a whole other conversation that ties into the rights of children.

[ajax]

We make things much worse by making them illegal.

[Silver]

Pretty nice leap of logic from smoking weed to marrying animals. I would suggest that the real immorality comes into play for jailing people that grow and smoke plants. It is an IMproper role of government.

Marijuana use was only made illegal in this country within the last 100 yrs. Are you suggesting prior to that we were more immoral as a country, and that by simply passing laws, making something illegal, we became more moral?

A vice perhaps, but you should understand that vices are not crimes:

“VICES are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property. In vices, the very essence of crime—that is, the design to injure the person or property of another—is
wanting.” - Lysander Spooner

Heaven forbid I discover your little vices, and move to bring the hammer of government down upon you and your household, for your own good of course.

Whether it's crime or vice, it all comes down to behaviors. And even though you may think your behavior doesn't affect anyone else, it really does, because we live together as families and are continually living and working around each other. Our government is there to protect basic rights, but what if your drinking and driving takes away my life. You've just committed a crime even though you had no ill-intent. What if a parent is continually high on drugs and is not taking good care of his or her child? That child's rights are not being protected. So while I don't believe in taking by force from one person and giving to another in the name of children, I do believe in laws that control substances like drugs and alcohol, and other dangerous behaviors that can affect the lives of others in pursuing their life, liberty and happiness. And Marriage laws, that is a whole other conversation that ties into the rights of children.

You're jumping to some assumptions, aren't you?
1. That Ajax uses drugs.
2. That even if he did, he would abuse those drugs to the point that it would affect others in society or his own children.
3. That government is the proper authority to control those drugs you don't like.

Here's a list of wars. You tell me which of them the government has won.
1. War on poverty
2. War on crime
3. War on drugs
4. War on terrorism
5. War on illegal immigration
6. The Korean War
7. The Viet Nam War
8. Afghanistan
9. Iraq
10. Libya
11. Syria
12. The war on an unprofitable postal service
13. Amtrak

There you go, a Lucky 13 List of Wars. I'm a-thinkin' that anybody who is a-thinkin' that they can rely on government to successfully regulate anything suffers from selective amnesia.

[capctr]

Lately I’m starting to wonder if pot actually DOES have healing properties, if utilized properly; however, just as tv or smartphones can help, poorly used they can harm. If tobacco can be used for bruises back in the day, what if pot could be distilled and applied topically, or used in an inhaler for those going through chemo? A safe medium to curb nausea and restore appetite?

[Sarah]

Pretty nice leap of logic from smoking weed to marrying animals. I would suggest that the real immorality comes into play for jailing people that grow and smoke plants. It is an IMproper role of government.

Marijuana use was only made illegal in this country within the last 100 yrs. Are you suggesting prior to that we were more immoral as a country, and that by simply passing laws, making something illegal, we became more moral?

A vice perhaps, but you should understand that vices are not crimes:

“VICES are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property. In vices, the very essence of crime—that is, the design to injure the person or property of another—is
wanting.” - Lysander Spooner

Heaven forbid I discover your little vices, and move to bring the hammer of government down upon you and your household, for your own good of course.

Whether it's crime or vice, it all comes down to behaviors. And even though you may think your behavior doesn't affect anyone else, it really does, because we live together as families and are continually living and working around each other. Our government is there to protect basic rights, but what if your drinking and driving takes away my life. You've just committed a crime even though you had no ill-intent. What if a parent is continually high on drugs and is not taking good care of his or her child? That child's rights are not being protected. So while I don't believe in taking by force from one person and giving to another in the name of children, I do believe in laws that control substances like drugs and alcohol, and other dangerous behaviors that can affect the lives of others in pursuing their life, liberty and happiness. And Marriage laws, that is a whole other conversation that ties into the rights of children.

You're jumping to some assumptions, aren't you?
1. That Ajax uses drugs.
2. That even if he did, he would abuse those drugs to the point that it would affect others in society or his own children.
3. That government is the proper authority to control those drugs you don't like.

Here's a list of wars. You tell me which of them the government has won.
1. War on poverty
2. War on crime
3. War on drugs
4. War on terrorism
5. War on illegal immigration
6. The Korean War
7. The Viet Nam War
8. Afghanistan
9. Iraq
10. Libya
11. Syria
12. The war on an unprofitable postal service
13. Amtrak

There you go, a Lucky 13 List of Wars. I'm a-thinkin' that anybody who is a-thinkin' that they can rely on government to successfully regulate anything suffers from selective amnesia.

I certainly did not mean to convey that I thought ajax used drugs. I was simply giving an example, and could have used "I" instead of "you." To make my point. So please reread my post with that substitution. I've felt this way for a long time and it has nothing to do with what I thought of the poster.

Can we all agree that rules and laws are good things? When kids are little they need more rules until they can make unselfish choices, for that is what bad behavior comes down to - selfish choices. Good behavior equals unselfish, responsible choices. When you work hard and are productive, even though that may seem to be a selfish choice, you at least are not taking advantage of someone else. So there is a spectrum that goes from giving/sharing - to providing for oneself and being independent - to living off of the work of others or being a taker. The founders knew that the citizens could only handle freedom if they were responsible, and givers, but what we see today is that citizens act childish and are takers, and with children in general, they need more laws to control and contain their selfish behavior.

I would much rather have power in the people (or business) rather than the government for various reasons, but I do believe in the power the Constitution gives the people to enact laws for the benefit of society. The unfortunate fact that war has been fought over a multitude of things only proves that people will continue on with bad behavior and prefer anarchy to order. If the police can't control street crime and can't win the war on killing and stealing, does that mean we should ignore that too?

[Silver]

Pretty nice leap of logic from smoking weed to marrying animals. I would suggest that the real immorality comes into play for jailing people that grow and smoke plants. It is an IMproper role of government.

Marijuana use was only made illegal in this country within the last 100 yrs. Are you suggesting prior to that we were more immoral as a country, and that by simply passing laws, making something illegal, we became more moral?

A vice perhaps, but you should understand that vices are not crimes:

“VICES are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property. In vices, the very essence of crime—that is, the design to injure the person or property of another—is
wanting.” - Lysander Spooner

Heaven forbid I discover your little vices, and move to bring the hammer of government down upon you and your household, for your own good of course.

Whether it's crime or vice, it all comes down to behaviors. And even though you may think your behavior doesn't affect anyone else, it really does, because we live together as families and are continually living and working around each other. Our government is there to protect basic rights, but what if your drinking and driving takes away my life. You've just committed a crime even though you had no ill-intent. What if a parent is continually high on drugs and is not taking good care of his or her child? That child's rights are not being protected. So while I don't believe in taking by force from one person and giving to another in the name of children, I do believe in laws that control substances like drugs and alcohol, and other dangerous behaviors that can affect the lives of others in pursuing their life, liberty and happiness. And Marriage laws, that is a whole other conversation that ties into the rights of children.

You're jumping to some assumptions, aren't you?
1. That Ajax uses drugs.
2. That even if he did, he would abuse those drugs to the point that it would affect others in society or his own children.
3. That government is the proper authority to control those drugs you don't like.

Here's a list of wars. You tell me which of them the government has won.
1. War on poverty
2. War on crime
3. War on drugs
4. War on terrorism
5. War on illegal immigration
6. The Korean War
7. The Viet Nam War
8. Afghanistan
9. Iraq
10. Libya
11. Syria
12. The war on an unprofitable postal service
13. Amtrak

There you go, a Lucky 13 List of Wars. I'm a-thinkin' that anybody who is a-thinkin' that they can rely on government to successfully regulate anything suffers from selective amnesia.

I certainly did not mean to convey that I thought ajax used drugs. I was simply giving an example, and could have used "I" instead of "you." To make my point. So please reread my post with that substitution. I've felt this way for a long time and it has nothing to do with what I thought of the poster.

Can we all agree that rules and laws are good things? When kids are little they need more rules until they can make unselfish choices, for that is what bad behavior comes down to - selfish choices. Good behavior equals unselfish, responsible choices. When you work hard and are productive, even though that may seem to be a selfish choice, you at least are not taking advantage of someone else. So there is a spectrum that goes from giving/sharing - to providing for oneself and being independent - to living off of the work of others or being a taker. The founders knew that the citizens could only handle freedom if they were responsible, and givers, but what we see today is that citizens act childish and are takers, and with children in general, they need more laws to control and contain their selfish behavior.

I would much rather have power in the people (or business) rather than the government for various reasons, but I do believe in the power the Constitution gives the people to enact laws for the benefit of society. The unfortunate fact that war has been fought over a multitude of things only proves that people will continue on with bad behavior and prefer anarchy to order. If the police can't control street crime and can't win the war on killing and stealing, does that mean we should ignore that too?

You've made some good points without refuting any of mine. Responding especially to the highlighted section of your last post, I submit for your consideration Einstein's well-known definition of insanity. If we expect the government to fix anything now, we are, having watched them fail at so many things, by very definition, insane.

Coupled with the insane laws & regulations of the government at all its different levels, and not forgetting their outrageous enforcement of same, is the truly tragic fact that prisons are now a for-profit enterprise, the CEOs of which earn bigger bonuses for having their houses of horror filled to overflowing. Can you say conflict of interest?

The obvious answer is that the police and prisons must never be used again to help those with addiction issues.

[Sarah]

Whether it's crime or vice, it all comes down to behaviors. And even though you may think your behavior doesn't affect anyone else, it really does, because we live together as families and are continually living and working around each other. Our government is there to protect basic rights, but what if your drinking and driving takes away my life. You've just committed a crime even though you had no ill-intent. What if a parent is continually high on drugs and is not taking good care of his or her child? That child's rights are not being protected. So while I don't believe in taking by force from one person and giving to another in the name of children, I do believe in laws that control substances like drugs and alcohol, and other dangerous behaviors that can affect the lives of others in pursuing their life, liberty and happiness. And Marriage laws, that is a whole other conversation that ties into the rights of children.

You're jumping to some assumptions, aren't you?
1. That Ajax uses drugs.
2. That even if he did, he would abuse those drugs to the point that it would affect others in society or his own children.
3. That government is the proper authority to control those drugs you don't like.

Here's a list of wars. You tell me which of them the government has won.
1. War on poverty
2. War on crime
3. War on drugs
4. War on terrorism
5. War on illegal immigration
6. The Korean War
7. The Viet Nam War
8. Afghanistan
9. Iraq
10. Libya
11. Syria
12. The war on an unprofitable postal service
13. Amtrak

There you go, a Lucky 13 List of Wars. I'm a-thinkin' that anybody who is a-thinkin' that they can rely on government to successfully regulate anything suffers from selective amnesia.

I certainly did not mean to convey that I thought ajax used drugs. I was simply giving an example, and could have used "I" instead of "you." To make my point. So please reread my post with that substitution. I've felt this way for a long time and it has nothing to do with what I thought of the poster.

Can we all agree that rules and laws are good things? When kids are little they need more rules until they can make unselfish choices, for that is what bad behavior comes down to - selfish choices. Good behavior equals unselfish, responsible choices. When you work hard and are productive, even though that may seem to be a selfish choice, you at least are not taking advantage of someone else. So there is a spectrum that goes from giving/sharing - to providing for oneself and being independent - to living off of the work of others or being a taker. The founders knew that the citizens could only handle freedom if they were responsible, and givers, but what we see today is that citizens act childish and are takers, and with children in general, they need more laws to control and contain their selfish behavior.

I would much rather have power in the people (or business) rather than the government for various reasons, but I do believe in the power the Constitution gives the people to enact laws for the benefit of society. The unfortunate fact that war has been fought over a multitude of things only proves that people will continue on with bad behavior and prefer anarchy to order. If the police can't control street crime and can't win the war on killing and stealing, does that mean we should ignore that too?

You've made some good points without refuting any of mine. Responding especially to the highlighted section of your last post, I submit for your consideration Einstein's well-known definition of insanity. If we expect the government to fix anything now, we are, having watched them fail at so many things, by very definition, insane.

Coupled with the insane laws & regulations of the government at all its different levels, and not forgetting their outrageous enforcement of same, is the truly tragic fact that prisons are now a for-profit enterprise, the CEOs of which earn bigger bonuses for having their houses of horror filled to overflowing. Can you say conflict of interest?

The obvious answer is that the police and prisons must never be used again to help those with addiction issues.

I agree that we have some insane laws and regulations, but I don't consider regulation of potentially dangerous or addictive substances insane. There are a lot of good reasons to regulate it. And there is no easy answer to the question of what to do with the law breakers. The problem with government is that when you give people the power to regulate, they start abusing the system and taking advantage of their power. But without any authority or laws, you have a case of abuse of individuals towards one another and general anarchy. So you're back to an argument between more control to no control. God placed bounds on our behavior for a reason. He sees a need for balance with his children, and part of our mission in life is to prove to God that we can live responsibly and unselfishly with a physical body so he can give us more freedom with less bounds. Without some type of bounds, we use our agency in selfish and destructive ways that not only affects us but those around us.

[brianj]

Very soon also other things will be legal. People will start marrying their dogs and other pets. Other abominable practices will also become legal. I wouldn't be surprise if in a very short time we can't even recognize the country we live in, according to it's morality and what's legal regarding morality. But I don't think this is anything new to anyone. Others already know this. But I'm just formally unhappy about and showing the article.

No way, that won't ever happen!
http://www.marryyourpet.com/

Maybe that site is just a joke.
https://nypost.com/2017/10/10/woman-to- ... o-her-dog/


Okay then, I guess people are already doing that. It isn't really that big of a leap to marrying a pet from seeing narcissistic women, upset that no guy is stupid enough to put up with her self-centeredness, marrying themselves so they can have their special day where they are the center of attention.

[MMbelieve]

Very soon also other things will be legal. People will start marrying their dogs and other pets. Other abominable practices will also become legal. I wouldn't be surprise if in a very short time we can't even recognize the country we live in, according to it's morality and what's legal regarding morality. But I don't think this is anything new to anyone. Others already know this. But I'm just formally unhappy about and showing the article.

No way, that won't ever happen!
http://www.marryyourpet.com/

Maybe that site is just a joke.
https://nypost.com/2017/10/10/woman-to- ... o-her-dog/


Okay then, I guess people are already doing that. It isn't really that big of a leap to marrying a pet from seeing narcissistic women, upset that no guy is stupid enough to put up with her self-centeredness, marrying themselves so they can have their special day where they are the center of attention.

And men will soon be replacing women with fake bodies of robots. The drama of the world and the issues between the sexes is just a really bad marriage on a large scale. Men and women are both losing it. I fear for my son being able to find a decent, moral and sane wife in 12 years time and if I had a daughter I fear that she would find a husband that even thought of women with any degree of respect or decency or would even want a human woman with flaws from the perceived and indoctrinated ideal of what a woman "should" be.

The gospel is the rock to lean on, without it I fear we will have no decency or respect for men, women, children, marriage, morals, honesty, principles etc.

[Silver]

You're jumping to some assumptions, aren't you?
1. That Ajax uses drugs.
2. That even if he did, he would abuse those drugs to the point that it would affect others in society or his own children.
3. That government is the proper authority to control those drugs you don't like.

Here's a list of wars. You tell me which of them the government has won.
1. War on poverty
2. War on crime
3. War on drugs
4. War on terrorism
5. War on illegal immigration
6. The Korean War
7. The Viet Nam War
8. Afghanistan
9. Iraq
10. Libya
11. Syria
12. The war on an unprofitable postal service
13. Amtrak

There you go, a Lucky 13 List of Wars. I'm a-thinkin' that anybody who is a-thinkin' that they can rely on government to successfully regulate anything suffers from selective amnesia.

I certainly did not mean to convey that I thought ajax used drugs. I was simply giving an example, and could have used "I" instead of "you." To make my point. So please reread my post with that substitution. I've felt this way for a long time and it has nothing to do with what I thought of the poster.

Can we all agree that rules and laws are good things? When kids are little they need more rules until they can make unselfish choices, for that is what bad behavior comes down to - selfish choices. Good behavior equals unselfish, responsible choices. When you work hard and are productive, even though that may seem to be a selfish choice, you at least are not taking advantage of someone else. So there is a spectrum that goes from giving/sharing - to providing for oneself and being independent - to living off of the work of others or being a taker. The founders knew that the citizens could only handle freedom if they were responsible, and givers, but what we see today is that citizens act childish and are takers, and with children in general, they need more laws to control and contain their selfish behavior.

I would much rather have power in the people (or business) rather than the government for various reasons, but I do believe in the power the Constitution gives the people to enact laws for the benefit of society. The unfortunate fact that war has been fought over a multitude of things only proves that people will continue on with bad behavior and prefer anarchy to order. If the police can't control street crime and can't win the war on killing and stealing, does that mean we should ignore that too?

You've made some good points without refuting any of mine. Responding especially to the highlighted section of your last post, I submit for your consideration Einstein's well-known definition of insanity. If we expect the government to fix anything now, we are, having watched them fail at so many things, by very definition, insane.

Coupled with the insane laws & regulations of the government at all its different levels, and not forgetting their outrageous enforcement of same, is the truly tragic fact that prisons are now a for-profit enterprise, the CEOs of which earn bigger bonuses for having their houses of horror filled to overflowing. Can you say conflict of interest?

The obvious answer is that the police and prisons must never be used again to help those with addiction issues.

I agree that we have some insane laws and regulations, but I don't consider regulation of potentially dangerous or addictive substances insane. There are a lot of good reasons to regulate it. And there is no easy answer to the question of what to do with the law breakers. The problem with government is that when you give people the power to regulate, they start abusing the system and taking advantage of their power. But without any authority or laws, you have a case of abuse of individuals towards one another and general anarchy. So you're back to an argument between more control to no control. God placed bounds on our behavior for a reason. He sees a need for balance with his children, and part of our mission in life is to prove to God that we can live responsibly and unselfishly with a physical body so he can give us more freedom with less bounds. Without some type of bounds, we use our agency in selfish and destructive ways that not only affects us but those around us.

That's all very well and good, but tell me who you to trust to regulate the drugs you don't like. If you say, "government," then you, Sarah, go to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. In other words, I absolutely will not allow you to say that the government should do it because as shown above they are not the solution. Don't play with words now. Who will regulate it to your satisfaction without the heretofore accompanying abuse of power?

[Sarah]

I certainly did not mean to convey that I thought ajax used drugs. I was simply giving an example, and could have used "I" instead of "you." To make my point. So please reread my post with that substitution. I've felt this way for a long time and it has nothing to do with what I thought of the poster.

Can we all agree that rules and laws are good things? When kids are little they need more rules until they can make unselfish choices, for that is what bad behavior comes down to - selfish choices. Good behavior equals unselfish, responsible choices. When you work hard and are productive, even though that may seem to be a selfish choice, you at least are not taking advantage of someone else. So there is a spectrum that goes from giving/sharing - to providing for oneself and being independent - to living off of the work of others or being a taker. The founders knew that the citizens could only handle freedom if they were responsible, and givers, but what we see today is that citizens act childish and are takers, and with children in general, they need more laws to control and contain their selfish behavior.

I would much rather have power in the people (or business) rather than the government for various reasons, but I do believe in the power the Constitution gives the people to enact laws for the benefit of society. The unfortunate fact that war has been fought over a multitude of things only proves that people will continue on with bad behavior and prefer anarchy to order. If the police can't control street crime and can't win the war on killing and stealing, does that mean we should ignore that too?

You've made some good points without refuting any of mine. Responding especially to the highlighted section of your last post, I submit for your consideration Einstein's well-known definition of insanity. If we expect the government to fix anything now, we are, having watched them fail at so many things, by very definition, insane.

Coupled with the insane laws & regulations of the government at all its different levels, and not forgetting their outrageous enforcement of same, is the truly tragic fact that prisons are now a for-profit enterprise, the CEOs of which earn bigger bonuses for having their houses of horror filled to overflowing. Can you say conflict of interest?

The obvious answer is that the police and prisons must never be used again to help those with addiction issues.

I agree that we have some insane laws and regulations, but I don't consider regulation of potentially dangerous or addictive substances insane. There are a lot of good reasons to regulate it. And there is no easy answer to the question of what to do with the law breakers. The problem with government is that when you give people the power to regulate, they start abusing the system and taking advantage of their power. But without any authority or laws, you have a case of abuse of individuals towards one another and general anarchy. So you're back to an argument between more control to no control. God placed bounds on our behavior for a reason. He sees a need for balance with his children, and part of our mission in life is to prove to God that we can live responsibly and unselfishly with a physical body so he can give us more freedom with less bounds. Without some type of bounds, we use our agency in selfish and destructive ways that not only affects us but those around us.

That's all very well and good, but tell me who you to trust to regulate the drugs you don't like. If you say, "government," then you, Sarah, go to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. In other words, I absolutely will not allow you to say that the government should do it because as shown above they are not the solution. Don't play with words now. Who will regulate it to your satisfaction without the heretofore accompanying abuse of power?

Well, there is a very nice man in my ward who works for DHS and is working everyday to get drug gangs off the streets. Now I realize that from there, the judicial and prison systems can be dysfunctional, dishonest and costly, but the people have to have some way to enforce laws. I guess we could try to hire private police forces, but that might also have it's own problems eventually.

[Silver]

You've made some good points without refuting any of mine. Responding especially to the highlighted section of your last post, I submit for your consideration Einstein's well-known definition of insanity. If we expect the government to fix anything now, we are, having watched them fail at so many things, by very definition, insane.

Coupled with the insane laws & regulations of the government at all its different levels, and not forgetting their outrageous enforcement of same, is the truly tragic fact that prisons are now a for-profit enterprise, the CEOs of which earn bigger bonuses for having their houses of horror filled to overflowing. Can you say conflict of interest?

The obvious answer is that the police and prisons must never be used again to help those with addiction issues.

I agree that we have some insane laws and regulations, but I don't consider regulation of potentially dangerous or addictive substances insane. There are a lot of good reasons to regulate it. And there is no easy answer to the question of what to do with the law breakers. The problem with government is that when you give people the power to regulate, they start abusing the system and taking advantage of their power. But without any authority or laws, you have a case of abuse of individuals towards one another and general anarchy. So you're back to an argument between more control to no control. God placed bounds on our behavior for a reason. He sees a need for balance with his children, and part of our mission in life is to prove to God that we can live responsibly and unselfishly with a physical body so he can give us more freedom with less bounds. Without some type of bounds, we use our agency in selfish and destructive ways that not only affects us but those around us.

That's all very well and good, but tell me who you to trust to regulate the drugs you don't like. If you say, "government," then you, Sarah, go to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. In other words, I absolutely will not allow you to say that the government should do it because as shown above they are not the solution. Don't play with words now. Who will regulate it to your satisfaction without the heretofore accompanying abuse of power?

Well, there is a very nice man in my ward who works for DHS and is working everyday to get drug gangs off the streets. Now I realize that from there, the judicial and prison systems can be dysfunctional, dishonest and costly, but the people have to have some way to enforce laws. I guess we could try to hire private police forces, but that might also have it's own problems eventually.

I accept your response in the spirit it was given. I feel the same frustration as you. Yet we cannot ever trust the same government that lost all its wars and gave us Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and 9/11 and all the abuses of inalienable rights that followed.

[gardener4life]

Pretty nice leap of logic from smoking weed to marrying animals. I would suggest that the real immorality comes into play for jailing people that grow and smoke plants. It is an IMproper role of government.

Marijuana use was only made illegal in this country within the last 100 yrs. Are you suggesting prior to that we were more immoral as a country, and that by simply passing laws, making something illegal, we became more moral?

A vice perhaps, but you should understand that vices are not crimes:

“VICES are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property. In vices, the very essence of crime—that is, the design to injure the person or property of another—is
wanting.” - Lysander Spooner

Heaven forbid I discover your little vices, and move to bring the hammer of government down upon you and your household, for your own good of course.

Whether it's crime or vice, it all comes down to behaviors. And even though you may think your behavior doesn't affect anyone else, it really does, because we live together as families and are continually living and working around each other. Our government is there to protect basic rights, but what if your drinking and driving takes away my life. You've just committed a crime even though you had no ill-intent. What if a parent is continually high on drugs and is not taking good care of his or her child? That child's rights are not being protected. So while I don't believe in taking by force from one person and giving to another in the name of children, I do believe in laws that control substances like drugs and alcohol, and other dangerous behaviors that can affect the lives of others in pursuing their life, liberty and happiness. And Marriage laws, that is a whole other conversation that ties into the rights of children.

You're jumping to some assumptions, aren't you?
1. That Ajax uses drugs.
2. That even if he did, he would abuse those drugs to the point that it would affect others in society or his own children.
3. That government is the proper authority to control those drugs you don't like.

Here's a list of wars. You tell me which of them the government has won.
1. War on poverty
2. War on crime
3. War on drugs
4. War on terrorism
5. War on illegal immigration
6. The Korean War
7. The Viet Nam War
8. Afghanistan
9. Iraq
10. Libya
11. Syria
12. The war on an unprofitable postal service
13. Amtrak

There you go, a Lucky 13 List of Wars. I'm a-thinkin' that anybody who is a-thinkin' that they can rely on government to successfully regulate anything suffers from selective amnesia.

I certainly did not mean to convey that I thought ajax used drugs. I was simply giving an example, and could have used "I" instead of "you." To make my point. So please reread my post with that substitution. I've felt this way for a long time and it has nothing to do with what I thought of the poster.

Can we all agree that rules and laws are good things? When kids are little they need more rules until they can make unselfish choices, for that is what bad behavior comes down to - selfish choices. Good behavior equals unselfish, responsible choices. When you work hard and are productive, even though that may seem to be a selfish choice, you at least are not taking advantage of someone else. So there is a spectrum that goes from giving/sharing - to providing for oneself and being independent - to living off of the work of others or being a taker. The founders knew that the citizens could only handle freedom if they were responsible, and givers, but what we see today is that citizens act childish and are takers, and with children in general, they need more laws to control and contain their selfish behavior.

I would much rather have power in the people (or business) rather than the government for various reasons, but I do believe in the power the Constitution gives the people to enact laws for the benefit of society. The unfortunate fact that war has been fought over a multitude of things only proves that people will continue on with bad behavior and prefer anarchy to order. If the police can't control street crime and can't win the war on killing and stealing, does that mean we should ignore that too?

Did you guys think you were clever by attacking her position with a guilt tactic to make her stop defending what's right against what's wrong? That's a classic teenage move to accuse someone doing good of whatever you want to make them stop attention on you and become defensive of their own position and stop asking you to not do something in order to get away with it.

In your rush to attack and think about what's legal and what's not you are neglecting the most important thing of all. What's good and what's evil?

If our society wasn't sick spiritually then they wouldn't jump on and put 'don't attack my agency' before basic identification of good and evil. The facts and comments you guys had against Sarah basically just proved your logic is flawed. There was nothing in there about good and evil. And in fact, you are very quick to attack anyone doing good, but rush to defend evil.

And you jumped to the logic of locking people up or thinking something criminal when i have said nothing about locking anyone up or against the founding fathers, nor about accusing anyone of doing anything criminal. Sometimes a parent can lock up something and put it away without spanking any children. This is very basic understanding of people to think this way.

And the comment about marrying animals was because there WAS an article in the last year about a man trying to marry his dog in the news. And it was similar to Canaanite evils in the scriptures in a small sort of way.

[Crackers]

Whether it's crime or vice, it all comes down to behaviors. And even though you may think your behavior doesn't affect anyone else, it really does, because we live together as families and are continually living and working around each other. Our government is there to protect basic rights, but what if your drinking and driving takes away my life. You've just committed a crime even though you had no ill-intent. What if a parent is continually high on drugs and is not taking good care of his or her child? That child's rights are not being protected. So while I don't believe in taking by force from one person and giving to another in the name of children, I do believe in laws that control substances like drugs and alcohol, and other dangerous behaviors that can affect the lives of others in pursuing their life, liberty and happiness. And Marriage laws, that is a whole other conversation that ties into the rights of children.

You're jumping to some assumptions, aren't you?
1. That Ajax uses drugs.
2. That even if he did, he would abuse those drugs to the point that it would affect others in society or his own children.
3. That government is the proper authority to control those drugs you don't like.

Here's a list of wars. You tell me which of them the government has won.
1. War on poverty
2. War on crime
3. War on drugs
4. War on terrorism
5. War on illegal immigration
6. The Korean War
7. The Viet Nam War
8. Afghanistan
9. Iraq
10. Libya
11. Syria
12. The war on an unprofitable postal service
13. Amtrak

There you go, a Lucky 13 List of Wars. I'm a-thinkin' that anybody who is a-thinkin' that they can rely on government to successfully regulate anything suffers from selective amnesia.

I certainly did not mean to convey that I thought ajax used drugs. I was simply giving an example, and could have used "I" instead of "you." To make my point. So please reread my post with that substitution. I've felt this way for a long time and it has nothing to do with what I thought of the poster.

Can we all agree that rules and laws are good things? When kids are little they need more rules until they can make unselfish choices, for that is what bad behavior comes down to - selfish choices. Good behavior equals unselfish, responsible choices. When you work hard and are productive, even though that may seem to be a selfish choice, you at least are not taking advantage of someone else. So there is a spectrum that goes from giving/sharing - to providing for oneself and being independent - to living off of the work of others or being a taker. The founders knew that the citizens could only handle freedom if they were responsible, and givers, but what we see today is that citizens act childish and are takers, and with children in general, they need more laws to control and contain their selfish behavior.

I would much rather have power in the people (or business) rather than the government for various reasons, but I do believe in the power the Constitution gives the people to enact laws for the benefit of society. The unfortunate fact that war has been fought over a multitude of things only proves that people will continue on with bad behavior and prefer anarchy to order. If the police can't control street crime and can't win the war on killing and stealing, does that mean we should ignore that too?

Did you guys think you were clever by attacking her position with a guilt tactic to make her stop defending what's right against what's wrong? That's a classic teenage move to accuse someone doing good of whatever you want to make them stop attention on you and become defensive of their own position and stop asking you to not do something in order to get away with it.

In your rush to attack and think about what's legal and what's not you are neglecting the most important thing of all. What's good and what's evil?

If our society wasn't sick spiritually then they wouldn't jump on and put 'don't attack my agency' before basic identification of good and evil. The facts and comments you guys had against Sarah basically just proved your logic is flawed. There was nothing in there about good and evil. And in fact, you are very quick to attack anyone doing good, but rush to defend evil.

And you jumped to the logic of locking people up or thinking something criminal when i have said nothing about locking anyone up or against the founding fathers, nor about accusing anyone of doing anything criminal. Sometimes a parent can lock up something and put it away without spanking any children. This is very basic understanding of people to think this way.

And the comment about marrying animals was because there WAS an article in the last year about a man trying to marry his dog in the news. And it was similar to Canaanite evils in the scriptures in a small sort of way.

So which would you consider it, good or evil, to prevent access to cannabis for those who have a legitimate medical need for it?

[Silver]

Whether it's crime or vice, it all comes down to behaviors. And even though you may think your behavior doesn't affect anyone else, it really does, because we live together as families and are continually living and working around each other. Our government is there to protect basic rights, but what if your drinking and driving takes away my life. You've just committed a crime even though you had no ill-intent. What if a parent is continually high on drugs and is not taking good care of his or her child? That child's rights are not being protected. So while I don't believe in taking by force from one person and giving to another in the name of children, I do believe in laws that control substances like drugs and alcohol, and other dangerous behaviors that can affect the lives of others in pursuing their life, liberty and happiness. And Marriage laws, that is a whole other conversation that ties into the rights of children.

You're jumping to some assumptions, aren't you?
1. That Ajax uses drugs.
2. That even if he did, he would abuse those drugs to the point that it would affect others in society or his own children.
3. That government is the proper authority to control those drugs you don't like.

Here's a list of wars. You tell me which of them the government has won.
1. War on poverty
2. War on crime
3. War on drugs
4. War on terrorism
5. War on illegal immigration
6. The Korean War
7. The Viet Nam War
8. Afghanistan
9. Iraq
10. Libya
11. Syria
12. The war on an unprofitable postal service
13. Amtrak

There you go, a Lucky 13 List of Wars. I'm a-thinkin' that anybody who is a-thinkin' that they can rely on government to successfully regulate anything suffers from selective amnesia.

I certainly did not mean to convey that I thought ajax used drugs. I was simply giving an example, and could have used "I" instead of "you." To make my point. So please reread my post with that substitution. I've felt this way for a long time and it has nothing to do with what I thought of the poster.

Can we all agree that rules and laws are good things? When kids are little they need more rules until they can make unselfish choices, for that is what bad behavior comes down to - selfish choices. Good behavior equals unselfish, responsible choices. When you work hard and are productive, even though that may seem to be a selfish choice, you at least are not taking advantage of someone else. So there is a spectrum that goes from giving/sharing - to providing for oneself and being independent - to living off of the work of others or being a taker. The founders knew that the citizens could only handle freedom if they were responsible, and givers, but what we see today is that citizens act childish and are takers, and with children in general, they need more laws to control and contain their selfish behavior.

I would much rather have power in the people (or business) rather than the government for various reasons, but I do believe in the power the Constitution gives the people to enact laws for the benefit of society. The unfortunate fact that war has been fought over a multitude of things only proves that people will continue on with bad behavior and prefer anarchy to order. If the police can't control street crime and can't win the war on killing and stealing, does that mean we should ignore that too?

Did you guys think you were clever by attacking her position with a guilt tactic to make her stop defending what's right against what's wrong? That's a classic teenage move to accuse someone doing good of whatever you want to make them stop attention on you and become defensive of their own position and stop asking you to not do something in order to get away with it.

In your rush to attack and think about what's legal and what's not you are neglecting the most important thing of all. What's good and what's evil?

If our society wasn't sick spiritually then they wouldn't jump on and put 'don't attack my agency' before basic identification of good and evil. The facts and comments you guys had against Sarah basically just proved your logic is flawed. There was nothing in there about good and evil. And in fact, you are very quick to attack anyone doing good, but rush to defend evil.

And you jumped to the logic of locking people up or thinking something criminal when i have said nothing about locking anyone up or against the founding fathers, nor about accusing anyone of doing anything criminal. Sometimes a parent can lock up something and put it away without spanking any children. This is very basic understanding of people to think this way.

And the comment about marrying animals was because there WAS an article in the last year about a man trying to marry his dog in the news. And it was similar to Canaanite evils in the scriptures in a small sort of way.

You occasionally write some good posts. This one wasn't one of them.

[Sarah]

You're jumping to some assumptions, aren't you?
1. That Ajax uses drugs.
2. That even if he did, he would abuse those drugs to the point that it would affect others in society or his own children.
3. That government is the proper authority to control those drugs you don't like.

Here's a list of wars. You tell me which of them the government has won.
1. War on poverty
2. War on crime
3. War on drugs
4. War on terrorism
5. War on illegal immigration
6. The Korean War
7. The Viet Nam War
8. Afghanistan
9. Iraq
10. Libya
11. Syria
12. The war on an unprofitable postal service
13. Amtrak

There you go, a Lucky 13 List of Wars. I'm a-thinkin' that anybody who is a-thinkin' that they can rely on government to successfully regulate anything suffers from selective amnesia.

I certainly did not mean to convey that I thought ajax used drugs. I was simply giving an example, and could have used "I" instead of "you." To make my point. So please reread my post with that substitution. I've felt this way for a long time and it has nothing to do with what I thought of the poster.

Can we all agree that rules and laws are good things? When kids are little they need more rules until they can make unselfish choices, for that is what bad behavior comes down to - selfish choices. Good behavior equals unselfish, responsible choices. When you work hard and are productive, even though that may seem to be a selfish choice, you at least are not taking advantage of someone else. So there is a spectrum that goes from giving/sharing - to providing for oneself and being independent - to living off of the work of others or being a taker. The founders knew that the citizens could only handle freedom if they were responsible, and givers, but what we see today is that citizens act childish and are takers, and with children in general, they need more laws to control and contain their selfish behavior.

I would much rather have power in the people (or business) rather than the government for various reasons, but I do believe in the power the Constitution gives the people to enact laws for the benefit of society. The unfortunate fact that war has been fought over a multitude of things only proves that people will continue on with bad behavior and prefer anarchy to order. If the police can't control street crime and can't win the war on killing and stealing, does that mean we should ignore that too?

Did you guys think you were clever by attacking her position with a guilt tactic to make her stop defending what's right against what's wrong? That's a classic teenage move to accuse someone doing good of whatever you want to make them stop attention on you and become defensive of their own position and stop asking you to not do something in order to get away with it.

In your rush to attack and think about what's legal and what's not you are neglecting the most important thing of all. What's good and what's evil?

If our society wasn't sick spiritually then they wouldn't jump on and put 'don't attack my agency' before basic identification of good and evil. The facts and comments you guys had against Sarah basically just proved your logic is flawed. There was nothing in there about good and evil. And in fact, you are very quick to attack anyone doing good, but rush to defend evil.

And you jumped to the logic of locking people up or thinking something criminal when i have said nothing about locking anyone up or against the founding fathers, nor about accusing anyone of doing anything criminal. Sometimes a parent can lock up something and put it away without spanking any children. This is very basic understanding of people to think this way.

And the comment about marrying animals was because there WAS an article in the last year about a man trying to marry his dog in the news. And it was similar to Canaanite evils in the scriptures in a small sort of way.

So which would you consider it, good or evil, to prevent access to cannabis for those who have a legitimate medical need for it?

I think this is like asking the same question about alcohol or tobacco. There are wise uses and then there are abuses. Even though some might argue there are legitimate medical uses for tobacco and alcohol (think J.S. being offered it before his operation), the Lord has seen fit to forbid it's use among the saints. Is that restriction evil?

[Spaced_Out]

That's all very well and good, but tell me who you to trust to regulate the drugs you don't like. If you say, "government," then you, Sarah, go to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. In other words, I absolutely will not allow you to say that the government should do it because as shown above they are not the solution. Don't play with words now. Who will regulate it to your satisfaction without the heretofore accompanying abuse of power?

Our new work policy on drugs and alcohol came out today, clearly stating if any drugs or alcohol is found in your body then it is instant dismissal, unless you have previously declared a medical prescription. If one has a long term chronic issue the person will be barred from performing certain activities.. Cannabis can stay in your system for up to 3 months so all those using recreational drugs are will soon no longer be unemployable living on welfare that is where the evil lies.

Rights does not give one a right to infringe on another right to safety.

[Crackers]

I certainly did not mean to convey that I thought ajax used drugs. I was simply giving an example, and could have used "I" instead of "you." To make my point. So please reread my post with that substitution. I've felt this way for a long time and it has nothing to do with what I thought of the poster.

Can we all agree that rules and laws are good things? When kids are little they need more rules until they can make unselfish choices, for that is what bad behavior comes down to - selfish choices. Good behavior equals unselfish, responsible choices. When you work hard and are productive, even though that may seem to be a selfish choice, you at least are not taking advantage of someone else. So there is a spectrum that goes from giving/sharing - to providing for oneself and being independent - to living off of the work of others or being a taker. The founders knew that the citizens could only handle freedom if they were responsible, and givers, but what we see today is that citizens act childish and are takers, and with children in general, they need more laws to control and contain their selfish behavior.

I would much rather have power in the people (or business) rather than the government for various reasons, but I do believe in the power the Constitution gives the people to enact laws for the benefit of society. The unfortunate fact that war has been fought over a multitude of things only proves that people will continue on with bad behavior and prefer anarchy to order. If the police can't control street crime and can't win the war on killing and stealing, does that mean we should ignore that too?

Did you guys think you were clever by attacking her position with a guilt tactic to make her stop defending what's right against what's wrong? That's a classic teenage move to accuse someone doing good of whatever you want to make them stop attention on you and become defensive of their own position and stop asking you to not do something in order to get away with it.

In your rush to attack and think about what's legal and what's not you are neglecting the most important thing of all. What's good and what's evil?

If our society wasn't sick spiritually then they wouldn't jump on and put 'don't attack my agency' before basic identification of good and evil. The facts and comments you guys had against Sarah basically just proved your logic is flawed. There was nothing in there about good and evil. And in fact, you are very quick to attack anyone doing good, but rush to defend evil.

And you jumped to the logic of locking people up or thinking something criminal when i have said nothing about locking anyone up or against the founding fathers, nor about accusing anyone of doing anything criminal. Sometimes a parent can lock up something and put it away without spanking any children. This is very basic understanding of people to think this way.

And the comment about marrying animals was because there WAS an article in the last year about a man trying to marry his dog in the news. And it was similar to Canaanite evils in the scriptures in a small sort of way.

So which would you consider it, good or evil, to prevent access to cannabis for those who have a legitimate medical need for it?

I think this is like asking the same question about alcohol or tobacco. There are wise uses and then there are abuses. Even though some might argue there are legitimate medical uses for tobacco and alcohol (think J.S. being offered it before his operation), the Lord has seen fit to forbid it's use among the saints. Is that restriction evil?

I don't disagree with your premise, but I am unaware of any scriptural restriction on cannabis. Indeed, we are instructed to use all wholesome herbs in prudence. "In prudence" being key.

[Silver]

That's all very well and good, but tell me who you to trust to regulate the drugs you don't like. If you say, "government," then you, Sarah, go to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. In other words, I absolutely will not allow you to say that the government should do it because as shown above they are not the solution. Don't play with words now. Who will regulate it to your satisfaction without the heretofore accompanying abuse of power?

Our new work policy on drugs and alcohol came out today, clearly stating if any drugs or alcohol is found in your body then it is instant dismissal, unless you have previously declared a medical prescription. If one has a long term chronic issue the person will be barred from performing certain activities.. Cannabis can stay in your system for up to 3 months so all those using recreational drugs are will soon no longer be unemployable living on welfare that is where the evil lies.

Rights does not give one a right to infringe on another right to safety.

I totally agree with your point about rights. What is often lost now in modern society is the critical need to hold people/corporations responsible for their actions. If a person consumes marijuana at home, sleeps, and rises 8 hours later, where is the victim? If there is no victim, where is the crime? If that same person injures another while under the influence of any substance, prescribed or otherwise, of course he should be held accountable.

I realize that this thread is about marijuana, but where is the outrage against alcohol abuse which is responsible for much more death and mayhem than pot?

For clarity, I have never smoked or ingested any form of cannabis. I wouldn't even if it were "recreationally legal." I'm participating in this thread because it's important to stress that having the government try to administer some kind of justice in this arena has been a complete and total failure. Why continue failed policies which ruin lives and which make drugs more valuable which increases their value which makes the drug-running business profitable for cartels and the politicians? It's insane to keep doing what we're doing.

[Silver]

Hey, it's Zerohedge, so tread carefully, but there are always some gems among the comments.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01- ... ed-live-tv

CNN Closes Out 2017 Smoking Weed on Live TV

Tue, 01/02/2018 - 00:13

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

CNN sent out one of their reporters to Colorado to 'investigate' legal procreation of marijuana and then broadcasted the degeneracy live for America to behold. Do not worry lads, marijuana is medicinal and doesn't have any downside, such as cancer or losing vast amounts of brain cells. Feel free to smoke as much as you want, operate machinery, and have a grande time.

Here's CNN at a puff and pass party.


And here's CNN on a weed party bus, exploring the virtues of having a bong attached to a gas mask.



I can't wait until heroin is legalized and CNN shows young America how to properly mainline opiates.

[ajax]

I think this is like asking the same question about alcohol or tobacco. There are wise uses and then there are abuses. Even though some might argue there are legitimate medical uses for tobacco and alcohol (think J.S. being offered it before his operation), the Lord has seen fit to forbid it's use among the saints. Is that restriction evil?

The Lord offered wisdom, not OT style restriction.

[eddie]

A Nation of potheads, that is just what we need! People who drive stoned, but believe they are so much better than those who use alcohol?
Women who think they are better Mothers when they are high on Marijuana because it calms them?

Justification, thats all it is, marijuana legalization and a nation’s abuse of a drug that will have generational consequences is sad, just plain sad.

[Juliet]

Lately I’m starting to wonder if pot actually DOES have healing properties, if utilized properly; however, just as tv or smartphones can help, poorly used they can harm. If tobacco can be used for bruises back in the day, what if pot could be distilled and applied topically, or used in an inhaler for those going through chemo? A safe medium to curb nausea and restore appetite?

It is incredible in healing the brain from ptsd. But smoking is not good for the lungs. And smell is terrible. The oil of cannabis is my preference.