Marijuana decriminalization bill gaining support in Congress

[Ran]

Wow... And to think I really thought you were a pretty open minded dude at one time. I'm sure they deserved all the punishment they got after your little anonymous phone call. Being degenerates and all. I wonder how many people at the party received prison sentences, and serious fines for smoking pot with their friends. I'm sure they were doing so much to harm you, and disrupt your peace of mind.

Aside from a majority of the people there being underaged? Nah, didn't bother me a bit. Having fewer losers around the block exposing this crap to young teens is always good in my book.

I hope you're capable of imagining what it would be like if someone called the cops on you and your social circle of friends for drinking booze, while prohibition was enacted. Not only that. But lets use our imagination here and imagine that beer was illegal because the person who sought to make it that way, did so for personal reasons, using racial prejudice as a key social motivator.

Let's start with the first part of this hypothetical situation. If it was illegal, I wouldn't be drinking it. I would have absolutely no problem with alcohol being on the same list as marijuana.

So here's the real question. What did they do you warrant you calling the cops on them besides getting a little loud on 4/20? If you have a legitimate reason, then I'll be able to understand that, but if you did it just to "bust" them, I'm quite disappointed. You probably screwed a bunch of peoples lives up in a way you're unable to understand or empathize with.

See my first response. Also, I don't feel bad for them at all. They chose to smoke illegally so they get what they get. I just hurried things along.

[DrivenMind]

Aside from a majority of the people there being underaged? Nah, didn't bother me a bit. Having fewer losers around the block exposing this crap to young teens is always good in my book.

So I take it, before you called the police you went over and checked IDs, just to make sure your assumption of them being "under aged" was correct, and accurately founded? Or did you just guess based on the look of the "losers" that they were underaged, and deserved to suffer persecution from this rednecks states finest. Your "losers" comment shows your prejudice.

Let's start with the first part of this hypothetical situation. If it was illegal, I wouldn't be drinking it. I would have absolutely no problem with alcohol being on the same list as marijuana.

So according to your logic, the law is in all cases the supreme intellectual authority on what people should and shouldn't do with their own bodies, in the privacy of their own lives. Does it not occur to you that the law isn't always objective, or unbiased? I wonder if the the Japanese thought it was fair when they were locked up in Interment Camps based on irrational thinking, and racial discrimination alone. Do you think that kind of bull**** would stand today?

See my first response. Also, I don't feel bad for them at all. They chose to smoke illegally so they get what they get. I just hurried things along.

Something tells me you'd feel differently if you'd ever be persecuted for victim less crime, or had to spend countless hours of your life in court being prosecuted when no harm was done.

[Ran]

So I take it, before you called the police you went over and checked IDs, just to make sure your assumption of them being "under aged" was correct, and accurately founded? Or did you just guess based on the look of the "losers" that they were underaged, and deserved to suffer persecution from this rednecks states finest. Your "losers" comment shows your prejudice.

Blantant obviousness was reason enough.

As far as my prejudice goes; Yes, I do consider them all to be losers. However turn about is fair play so feel free to think what you want of me.

So the law according to your logic, the law is in all cases the supreme intellectual authority on what people should and shouldn't do with their own bodies, in the privacy of their own lives. Does it not occur to you that the law isn't always objective, or unbiased? I wonder if the the Japanese thought it was fair when they were locked up in Interment Camps based on irrational thinking, and racial discrimination alone. Do you think that kind of bull**** would stand today?

The law is the law. Is it objective or biased sometimes? Sure, but that's just too bad. Break the law go to jail. Don't like it? Move somewhere else. End of story.

Something tells me you'd feel differently if you'd ever be persecuted for victim less crime, or had to spend countless hours of your life in court being prosecuted when no harm was done.

Yes, no harm was done aside from the distribution of an illegal substance to young teens around the area. Also, hypotheticals are really a waste of time man. "What if's" can be used to turn anything around as a less than effective counter argument. They're good for fun topics, but not so much for things like this.

Sounds like an awfully submissive viewpoint to take, but to each his own I suppose. If you want to pretend that politicians always have your best interests in mind feel free to do so, but history has a way of showing us that isn't always the case. Sometimes laws are made for no good reason at all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that politicians can be corrupt and what-not. I'll also voice an opinion on certain matters from time to time. However, if something is illegal then I will abide by the law despite the means by which the law was implemented. That's just how I am. My self-interest mindset will do nothing but get me in trouble if my activities are illegal. Should things come to such a sh*tty situation to where I can't stand it anymore, I'll move.

[DrivenMind]

Blantant obviousness was reason enough.

As far as my prejudice goes, yes I do consider them all to be losers. Turn about is fair play so feel free to think what you want of me.

But still without actual evidence to support this claim, you didn't know for sure if they were underage or not. It was an assumption based on a circumstantial observation alone.

The law is the law. End of story. Is it objective or biased sometimes? Sure, but that's just too bad. Break the law go to jail. End of story.

End of story? I think not, the people that shape and reform the laws in this country as the people who stand up against them when they're ridiculous. Again, just because an authority figure says their word is "law" means it should be followed blindly, without consideration?

Didn't the "law" in this country lock people up in the late 60s for distributing birth control? Because back then didn't only "losers" and "degenerates" would want to wear condoms too? And they did all that "harm" by having sex without the risk of unplanned pregnancy.

Yes, no harm was done aside from the distribution of an illegal substance to young teens around the area. Also, hypotheticals are really a waste of time man.

You still failed to verify where there was harm was done to any parties. Was there property damage involved? Did someone get hurt? Where is your proof that someone was doing harm? You sound like Ronald Regan.

"What if's" can be used to turn anything around as a less than effective counter argument.

What ifs are also how accepted social norms and beliefs, are brought into the public spotlight for closer analysis, and scrutiny. Is that not the point of something like philosophy?

"What if we tried to land on the moon?"

"What if all men were created equal, and we gave equal voting rights to blacks?"

"What is slavery is wrong?"

"What if we opposed British rule?"

"What if gays aren't immoral people or a hazard to the "American family"?"

[Ran]

But you still didn't know for sure if they were underage or not.

I'll take my chances and bet I made a correct assumption.

End of story? I think not, the people that shape and reform the laws in this country as the people who stand up against them when they're ridiculous. Again, just because an authority figure says their word is "law" means it should be followed blindly, without consideration?

This law isn't rediculous. It's just the rediculous people that keep crying about their precious drug.

You still failed to verify where there was harm was done to any parties. Was there property damage involved? Did someone get hurt? Where is your proof that someone was doing harm? You sound like Ronald Regan.

They're exposing underaged kids to an illegal substance thus integrating them into a law-breaking situation. Yeah, no harm there.

What ifs are also how accepted social norms and beliefs, are brought into the public spotlight for closer analysis, and scrutiny. Is that not the point of something like philosophy?

Your previous "what if's" do not correspond with the examples you just provided. There are different types of "what if's"

[DrivenMind]

I'll take my chances and bet I made a correct assumption.

Again, just because you assume there was no flaw in your judgment doesn't mean there isn't any.

This law isn't rediculous. It's just the rediculous people that keep crying about their precious drug.

How is it not rediculious? Nearly all "studies" that have "shown" cannabis to be addictive, have been unfounded, and improperly researched.

"Their precious drug"... You say that as if alcohol isn't equally, precious to an alcoholic. Again your showing psychoactive favoritism.

They're exposing underaged kids to an illegal substance thus integrating them into a law-breaking situation. Yeah, no harm there.

::rollseyes:: Because you were sooo acting out of social concern, and not vindictive prejudice. And you soooo took it upon yourself to bust people who were doing something you didn't agree with. Your justification as to whether or not they were underage is irrelevant without you knowing for sure. You still failed to verify who exactly was suffering injury or damage. Who was the victim here? Who was suffering? You know how often my Asian friends have been accused of "looking" underage?

Cut the crap, you know damn well you didn't call the police because you thought "harm" was being done.

Your previous "what if's" do not correspond with the examples you just provided. There are different types of "what if's"

The moon thing was a bit far fetched, I'll give you that. But since the laws making cannabis illegal were founded upon racial prejudice and not scientific fact, I'm gonna stick to that one.