Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As someone who has never done any drugs, even I find the question dodging here to be epic. She avoids an answer 11 times.
Your thoughts?

It’s just one of those traditional ceremonies.

You call in someone with an important name or job description, you ask them simple questions while trying to appear learned, they don't answer any questions for 2-3 hours, then you thank them for showing up and they leave.

Your name gets a blurb in the news and the people back home know that you’re doing stuff.


But yea, that is some grade A question run-around fu she has there.

But really its a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation she's in.

Admit that it is not as bad, then the next question is "Why then do we give hospital patients morphine and not marijuana then?"

Say that's it's worse or as bad and get shot down by all the scientific papers and statistics that congressman has undoubtly brought with him.

Look into those empty eyes. She knows she's been given a bucket and spade and told to stop the tide from coming in.

I understand why the guy is there asking questions. His state has decided that marijuana should be legal, therefore it is his duty as a public servant of that state to represent that decision to the federal government.

California did the whole medical marijuana thing years ago and it passed. This last election we voted to just make it straight up legal(no prescription or permits) and it lost that vote by only like 10%(don't quote me on that number though). If we vote it again I imagine it will pass.

The entire reason marijuana was banned was to cater to private industry that owned lumber reserves, and hemp would have been a major threat to their profits. It is an outdated law, just like slavery and segregation. At one point those were thought to be the right way of thinking(not by everyone, but by most) in this country. We did away with those, and we should do away with pot laws.

The statistics for marijuana related prison terms is insane. The amount of money spent policing it is insane. The amount of people dying from it is insane. No one OD"s on pot.

feeder wrote:Look into those empty eyes. She knows she's been given a bucket and spade and told to stop the tide from coming in.

Yeah, I feel bad for her.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aerethan wrote:I understand why the guy is there asking questions. His state has decided that marijuana should be legal, therefore it is his duty as a public servant of that state to represent that decision to the federal government.

Well, sort of. Federal representatives don't have to carry their state's policies to the federal level, in fact they usually shouldn't because the nature of the politics involved are very different. Then there's the whole "separate sovereigns" thing (I know its not directly applicable, but it illustrates the point nicely.).

Aerethan wrote:
The statistics for marijuana related prison terms is insane. The amount of money spent policing it is insane. The amount of people dying from it is insane. No one OD"s on pot.

They OD on lead related to pot.

Just as a side question, is pot ever mixed in the crazy chemicals (like rat poison) like cocaine is, or is that not something that generally happens with pot?

Then I suppose I wonder how many people die from ODing on cocaine, and how many die from all the crap that sometimes gets mixed in with it.

LordofHats wrote:Just as a side question, is pot ever mixed in the crazy chemicals (like rat poison) like cocaine is, or is that not something that generally happens with pot?

No, because there's no reason to. Though you can buy laced pot, which can include pretty much anything you can suspend in a solution. Basically it gets mixed with things that produce either a better high, or a unique high, but not things that extend the pot (Outside of dried greens of various sorts, that are easy to spot.)

LordofHats wrote:
Then I suppose I wonder how many people die from ODing on cocaine, and how many die from all the crap that sometimes gets mixed in with it.

The vast majority of cocaine deaths are from the cut. Its actually pretty difficult to OD on cocaine because the psychological effect pushes you away from any focus you might have on the drug.

I've never heard of cutting pot, though I don't know that much about it to begin with from the user side of it. Most of the time it is sold in "nuggets" or buds, so it would be rather obvious if it were fake or watered down. I suppose you could cut it when sold in smaller amounts where it is just little bits in a baggie.

But most people who sell weed also smoke weed, and aren't trying to rip people off.

With cocaine, the idea is to use the best stuff(pure/uncut) for a new buyer who then gets hooked, and then you slowly sell them less and less quality as they can no longer tell the difference, they just need the hit and don't care about quality.

I would probably smoke weed if it were legal, but I'd do it about as much as I drink, which is only on occasion at parties and such which for me is once every 2 months or so.

Now when I retire, I'll be trying out all kinds of drugs that I won't do now. LSD and ecstasy are the main two I would want to try, but only after I have zero obligations to family and society left, and only under the supervision of someone sober, lest I start eating someones face.

Some things I'll never do: Heroin, Cocaine, PCP and Meth are never happening for me, as I understand them to be insanely addictive, and in the case of Meth it can ruin sex for you as sober sex won't live up to crack head sex.

I view recreational drugs as exactly that: recreational. I'm not interested in being high 90% of the time. I'm not interested in something that will hold me hostage.

Aerethan wrote:
The entire reason marijuana was banned was to cater to private industry that owned lumber reserves, and hemp would have been a major threat to their profits. It is an outdated law, just like slavery and segregation. At one point those were thought to be the right way of thinking(not by everyone, but by most) in this country. We did away with those, and we should do away with pot laws.

.

Someone reads Jack Herer.

She's a slimy bureaucrat doing what slimy bureaucrats do in congress: evade, evade, evade. I just want to reach through the interwebs and throttle a real answer from her. As a side note did you know Jared Polis is one of the richest men in congress, and the only gay parent in congress? I didn't.

I would not have figured Colorado as being so modern as to vote in rich gay men to Congress. Then again I wouldn't think they'd legalize pot either and they did that.

I also find it hilarious when democrats are rich.

Aerethan wrote:
I also find it hilarious when democrats are rich.

How's that?

AustonT wrote:

Aerethan wrote:
The entire reason marijuana was banned was to cater to private industry that owned lumber reserves, and hemp would have been a major threat to their profits. It is an outdated law, just like slavery and segregation. At one point those were thought to be the right way of thinking(not by everyone, but by most) in this country. We did away with those, and we should do away with pot laws.

.

Someone reads Jack Herer.

Never heard of him. I just try to be informed about issues that are suspect of scandal like the ban on certain drugs, the bottled water racket, alternative fuels and energy, all that stuff.

I do love me some documentaries. I also don't buy Tyson chicken. That company is scum.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:

Aerethan wrote:
I also find it hilarious when democrats are rich.

How's that?

Well generally democrats are all about fat taxes on the "rich", so it would seem to be against a rich mans interests to be democrat. I'm not saying that all democrats are the same. And in the case of politics it can make sense for a rich person to be democrat if they truly believe in the parties policies and views.

Now non politician rich democrats are funny too. My mother for example. Flaming liberal democrat. But she makes $150k a year. It makes zero financial sense for her to be democrat. It just seems like fiscal masochism.

But that's just me. I'm a poor republican. I believe in strict corporate taxes, but not so much on personal taxes. I don't plan on always being poor, and when I'm not I'd like to keep as much of the money that I earn as possible.

Aerethan wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Aerethan wrote:
The entire reason marijuana was banned was to cater to private industry that owned lumber reserves, and hemp would have been a major threat to their profits. It is an outdated law, just like slavery and segregation. At one point those were thought to be the right way of thinking(not by everyone, but by most) in this country. We did away with those, and we should do away with pot laws.

.

Someone reads Jack Herer.

Never heard of him. I just try to be informed about issues that are suspect of scandal like the ban on certain drugs, the bottled water racket, alternative fuels and energy, all that stuff.

I do love me some documentaries. I also don't buy Tyson chicken. That company is scum.

Given what you posted I'd wager you either read his book or read opinions based on it. It's informative and well researched but in the end it's more opinion than fact.
http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aerethan wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Aerethan wrote:
I also find it hilarious when democrats are rich.

How's that?

Well generally democrats are all about fat taxes on the "rich", so it would seem to be against a rich mans interests to be democrat. I'm not saying that all democrats are the same. And in the case of politics it can make sense for a rich person to be democrat if they truly believe in the parties policies and views.

Now non politician rich democrats are funny too. My mother for example. Flaming liberal democrat. But she makes $150k a year. It makes zero financial sense for her to be democrat. It just seems like fiscal masochism.

But that's just me. I'm a poor republican. I believe in strict corporate taxes, but not so much on personal taxes. I don't plan on always being poor, and when I'm not I'd like to keep as much of the money that I earn as possible.

Name the first 10 rich men or women that come to your mind. I will wager more than half of them are democrats.

AustonT wrote:Given what you posted I'd wager you either read his book or read opinions based on it. It's informative and well researched but in the end it's more opinion than fact.
http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/

A lot of things are 'opinion.' In what way is his book wrong/inaccurate/spinned/etc/etc? I have not read it (EDIT: I have heard the argument about lumber, but then everyone who watches Family Guy has), I honestly am curious but that should be obvious by now, I know next to nothing about drugs

LordofHats wrote:

AustonT wrote:Given what you posted I'd wager you either read his book or read opinions based on it. It's informative and well researched but in the end it's more opinion than fact.
http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/

A lot of things are opinion. In what way is his book wrong/inaccurate/etc/etc? I have not read it, I honestly am curious but that should be obvious by now, I know next to nothing about drugs

Its not "wrong" I happen to like it, but it makes unsubstantiated claims based on facts, I'm saying opinion in the place of conspiracy theory. In sum the book is roughly on par with this:

Ah okay. So he looks at a connect the dot challenge to make a boring old bird, and somehow makes a bad ass looking t-rex instead. Sounds like business as usual

My views on most drugs I'll admit are from documentaries, but I've not watched a "biased" one about pot. I've watched ones about how and when drugs were made illegal. The History Channel shows them every now and then.

I think I only know one person besides my mother who is "rich". And he is quite definitely republican.

In fact that person is the main reason I'm against graduated taxes.

He is an attorney now, as is his wife. He worked his ass of to put himself through junior college, state college, and law school. Paid for it all himself, no grants or scholarships. He works his ass off now to make the money he does. In my view he deserves to keep as much of that money as possible because he worked damn hard to earn it. He earns combined with his wife what Obama would say is rich(more than 250k). Since they are married they have to file jointly, meaning they get taxed at a higher bracket than they would if filing separately.

I don't see what is wrong with a straight 20 or 25% off the top tax. If you are poor it won't be much money. If you are rich it will be a lot of money.

people shouldn't be rewarded for making minimum wage. There are ways to improve your income regardless of where you started in life here in the US. Some people have it handed to them, and that perhaps isn't fair. But you will appreciate your money and lifestyle if you know you worked hard for it and deserve it.

LordofHats wrote:Ah okay. So he looks at a connect the dot challenge to make a boring old bird, and somehow makes a bad ass looking t-rex instead. Sounds like business as usual

If you are interested in the history behind pot and its legality its not a long book and it's free on line. But yes it is a rather inventive connect the dots. If not at LEAST Google "The billion dollar crop" and read the Popular Science article.

Aerethan wrote:I suppose you could cut it when sold in smaller amounts where it is just little bits in a baggie.

Leaf is what its called.

Aerethan wrote:
But most people who sell weed also smoke weed, and aren't trying to rip people off.

In what world? I mean, yeah, most sellers smoke, but that doesn't mean they have no business sense.

Aerethan wrote:
Now when I retire, I'll be trying out all kinds of drugs that I won't do now. LSD and ecstasy are the main two I would want to try, but only after I have zero obligations to family and society left, and only under the supervision of someone sober, lest I start eating someones face.

LSD isn't worth it, try shrooms instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aerethan wrote:
Well generally democrats are all about fat taxes on the "rich", so it would seem to be against a rich mans interests to be democrat. I'm not saying that all democrats are the same. And in the case of politics it can make sense for a rich person to be democrat if they truly believe in the parties policies and views.

No, it makes sense to be a Democrat if you think being a Democrat will get you elected, and you're connected to the Democrat network.

For example: I'm from Chicago. If I were to get into the face side of politics it would be the Democrat side because that's what is available, and once you pick a side there is really no going back. That sounds like a joke, but it isn't, you become a security risk once you work for anyone other than your bosses.

Aerethan wrote:
Now non politician rich democrats are funny too. My mother for example. Flaming liberal democrat. But she makes $150k a year. It makes zero financial sense for her to be democrat. It just seems like fiscal masochism.

Why? Its not like taxes have varied a great deal across Democrat and Republican regimes.

Aerethan wrote:
But that's just me. I'm a poor republican. I believe in strict corporate taxes, but not so much on personal taxes. I don't plan on always being poor, and when I'm not I'd like to keep as much of the money that I earn as possible.

Then it makes sense to vote for taxes that help you in all cases. Tax the rich when not, and the poor when rich.

feeder wrote:Look into those empty eyes.

And, you know, the thing about a shark... he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living... until he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'. The ocean turns red, and despite all the poundin' and the hollerin', they all come in and they... rip you to pieces.

If you are interested in politics only to make things better for yourself, then many things don't make sense.

If you are into politics to make things better for society, then you will look at things differently.

Last year was our first year as a barely 6 digit income household. According to some wisdom in this thread I should become Republican so that I can hoard more of my money. But I am okay with taxes, and I don't mind spending into social programs if it makes society better. I still lean heavy towards the Democratic side of things.

Now I don't think we should raise taxes simply to raise taxes, and waste needs to be cut, and money needs to be spend responsibly. But politics for the sake of being selfish "I want to keep more stuff" is not for me.

If you are interested in politics only to make things better for yourself, then many things don't make sense.

If you are into politics to make things better for society, then you will look at things differently.

Show me a politican who's not in it for themselves and I'll show you a liar.

Frazzled wrote:

If you are interested in politics only to make things better for yourself, then many things don't make sense.

If you are into politics to make things better for society, then you will look at things differently.

Show me a politican who's not in it for themselves and I'll show you a liar.

I was thinking more of the average "rich person" (since $150,000 puts you near that in this thread) being a "fool" for voting Democrat.

I know two or three that are not into it for themselves, but that is much more likely at the local level and maybe (bit maybe) the state level.

You know two or three politicians not in it for themselves?

Really. Are they getting a paycheck?

The biggest one that comes to mind is sitting on our city council, and he most likely loses money each week on the day that he has to sit at the council meeting instead of doing surgery.

d-usa wrote:The biggest one that comes to mind is sitting on our city council, and he most likely loses money each week on the day that he has to sit at the council meeting instead of doing surgery.

And he doesn't help insure medical issues are fully funded, especially his hospital? How about his relatives. I'm sure none of their companies get contracts.

EDIT: I'm being cynical. I'm sure there are those rarest of rare local guys out to do it for society and not for personal benefit. Those are the ones you really have to watch...

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:The biggest one that comes to mind is sitting on our city council, and he most likely loses money each week on the day that he has to sit at the council meeting instead of doing surgery.

And he doesn't help insure medical issues are fully funded, especially his hospital? How about his relatives. I'm sure none of their companies get contracts.

EDIT: I'm being cynical. I'm sure there are those rarest of rare local guys out to do it for society and not for personal benefit. Those are the ones you really have to watch...

Well, not really alot going on that our city can do to fund his private surgical clinic.

He is probably one of the best politicians I have the privilege of knowing though, and stands for a lot of things that I also support so I might be a smidgen biased. He is pushing very hard for the city to be more open in the way they do business, follow open meeting laws, have transparent bidding processes and decision making. He also pushes for a lot of environmental initiatives, public transportation, and stuff like that as well.

I got to hang out with him and Ralph Nader once though, so that might make him (and maybe me) less favorable in your eyes .

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:The biggest one that comes to mind is sitting on our city council, and he most likely loses money each week on the day that he has to sit at the council meeting instead of doing surgery.

And he doesn't help insure medical issues are fully funded, especially his hospital? How about his relatives. I'm sure none of their companies get contracts.

EDIT: I'm being cynical. I'm sure there are those rarest of rare local guys out to do it for society and not for personal benefit. Those are the ones you really have to watch...

Well, not really alot going on that our city can do to fund his private surgical clinic.

He is probably one of the best politicians I have the privilege of knowing though, and stands for a lot of things that I also support so I might be a smidgen biased. He is pushing very hard for the city to be more open in the way they do business, follow open meeting laws, have transparent bidding processes and decision making. He also pushes for a lot of environmental initiatives, public transportation, and stuff like that as well.

I got to hang out with him and Ralph Nader once though, so that might make him (and maybe me) less favorable in your eyes .

I voted for Nader.

Twice.

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:

I got to hang out with him and Ralph Nader once though, so that might make him (and maybe me) less favorable in your eyes .

I voted for Nader.

Twice.

It was a pretty neat experience. Got to visit with Nader at this guys apartment and have dinner with them. Say what you want about Nader politically, he came across as a genuine and pretty smart guy.

dogma wrote:They OD on lead related to pot.

Sorry, not an attack on you, but this sounds like scare-tactics BS.

I've never heard of this - can you explain more, or provide a link?