Hey Marijuana Advocates, Look Here
#21
(07-08-2015, 07:23 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(07-08-2015, 06:50 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(07-08-2015, 06:42 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(07-08-2015, 11:02 AM)Hugo Wrote: Unless someone simply wants to believe in a God.  You ain't so pro choice on that.... Smiling

Things kind of got out of hand before I could bet back to you Hugo.

I agree: 100%. Those who want to believe in God should have every right to to that belief, and the complete freedom to practice that faith when and where they want. 
But like ALL freedoms, there are limits. 
When people of faith bring that to the legislature and make laws enforcing their beliefs, I object. 

Sustained.

Or if they show up at my door and try to enroll me, I reserve the right to be terribly annoyed or to screw with them, my choice. Smiling  

 Yeah especially the third time...


 This is how you handle them..

Reply
#22
(07-08-2015, 07:23 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(07-08-2015, 06:50 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(07-08-2015, 06:42 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(07-08-2015, 11:02 AM)Hugo Wrote: Unless someone simply wants to believe in a God.  You ain't so pro choice on that.... Smiling

Things kind of got out of hand before I could bet back to you Hugo.

I agree: 100%. Those who want to believe in God should have every right to to that belief, and the complete freedom to practice that faith when and where they want. 
But like ALL freedoms, there are limits. 
When people of faith bring that to the legislature and make laws enforcing their beliefs, I object. 

Sustained.

Or if they show up at my door and try to enroll me, I reserve the right to be terribly annoyed or to screw with them, my choice. Smiling  

Just remember, you can screw with 'me but you can't shoot 'em. And They WILL come back. 

A bit off subject, but still kind of points to the same stuff: How do you find a vegan at a party? You don't have to, they will find you. 
Reply
#23
(07-09-2015, 12:46 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(07-08-2015, 07:23 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(07-08-2015, 06:50 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(07-08-2015, 06:42 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(07-08-2015, 11:02 AM)Hugo Wrote: Unless someone simply wants to believe in a God.  You ain't so pro choice on that.... Smiling

Things kind of got out of hand before I could bet back to you Hugo.

I agree: 100%. Those who want to believe in God should have every right to to that belief, and the complete freedom to practice that faith when and where they want. 
But like ALL freedoms, there are limits. 
When people of faith bring that to the legislature and make laws enforcing their beliefs, I object. 

Sustained.

Or if they show up at my door and try to enroll me, I reserve the right to be terribly annoyed or to screw with them, my choice. Smiling  

Just remember, you can screw with 'me but you can't shoot 'em. And They WILL come back. 

A bit off subject, but still kind of points to the same stuff: How do you find a vegan at a party? You don't have to, they will find you. 

Can't I shot 'em with my paintball gun? It's not a real firearm.  Wink
Reply
#24
(07-09-2015, 06:28 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 12:46 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(07-08-2015, 07:23 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(07-08-2015, 06:50 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(07-08-2015, 06:42 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Things kind of got out of hand before I could bet back to you Hugo.

I agree: 100%. Those who want to believe in God should have every right to to that belief, and the complete freedom to practice that faith when and where they want. 
But like ALL freedoms, there are limits. 
When people of faith bring that to the legislature and make laws enforcing their beliefs, I object. 

Sustained.

Or if they show up at my door and try to enroll me, I reserve the right to be terribly annoyed or to screw with them, my choice. Smiling  

Just remember, you can screw with 'me but you can't shoot 'em. And They WILL come back. 

A bit off subject, but still kind of points to the same stuff: How do you find a vegan at a party? You don't have to, they will find you. 

Can't I shot 'em with my paintball gun? It's not a real firearm.  Wink

Okay. Back to the Topic for a minute.
Listening to a podcast last night (can't remember which one) and the host was interviewing three "experts" who had views about the new pot laws, mostly in Colorado. What they all agreed about was that MJ is really not good for brains of young folks 12-17 years. They are concerned because the stuff these days packs a much better high. 
Gave me pause. They claim to have all kinds of science to back it up. (No, I didn't search for it)
So, how do we go about keeping the stuff away from these young minds? 

An issue? 
Reply
#25
(07-09-2015, 09:29 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 06:28 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 12:46 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(07-08-2015, 07:23 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(07-08-2015, 06:50 PM)tvguy Wrote: Sustained.

Or if they show up at my door and try to enroll me, I reserve the right to be terribly annoyed or to screw with them, my choice. Smiling  

Just remember, you can screw with 'me but you can't shoot 'em. And They WILL come back. 

A bit off subject, but still kind of points to the same stuff: How do you find a vegan at a party? You don't have to, they will find you. 

Can't I shot 'em with my paintball gun? It's not a real firearm.  Wink

Okay. Back to the Topic for a minute.
Listening to a podcast last night (can't remember which one) and the host was interviewing three "experts" who had views about the new pot laws, mostly in Colorado. What they all agreed about was that MJ is really not good for brains of young folks 12-17 years. They are concerned because the stuff these days packs a much better high. 
Gave me pause. They claim to have all kinds of science to back it up. (No, I didn't search for it)
So, how do we go about keeping the stuff away from these young minds? 

An issue? 

Of course it's an issue!  Didn't you notice anyone against it passing into law?

Think ahead 20 years, which equals two "generations".  They won't have any context to compare it to; no different than beer.  Less minds will make it into the actual intellectual realm, and more minds will be wasted.

And if you voted FOR it, YOU are to blame.  Think on that.  Or don't.  Hell, you'll be dead before it has full impact anyway.  Why worry?
Reply
#26
(07-09-2015, 09:51 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 09:29 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 06:28 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 12:46 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(07-08-2015, 07:23 PM)Cuzz Wrote: Or if they show up at my door and try to enroll me, I reserve the right to be terribly annoyed or to screw with them, my choice. Smiling  

Just remember, you can screw with 'me but you can't shoot 'em. And They WILL come back. 

A bit off subject, but still kind of points to the same stuff: How do you find a vegan at a party? You don't have to, they will find you. 

Can't I shot 'em with my paintball gun? It's not a real firearm.  Wink

Okay. Back to the Topic for a minute.
Listening to a podcast last night (can't remember which one) and the host was interviewing three "experts" who had views about the new pot laws, mostly in Colorado. What they all agreed about was that MJ is really not good for brains of young folks 12-17 years. They are concerned because the stuff these days packs a much better high. 
Gave me pause. They claim to have all kinds of science to back it up. (No, I didn't search for it)
So, how do we go about keeping the stuff away from these young minds? 

An issue? 

Of course it's an issue!  Didn't you notice anyone against it passing into law?

Think ahead 20 years, which equals two "generations".  They won't have any context to compare it to; no different than beer.  Less minds will make it into the actual intellectual realm, and more minds will be wasted.

And if you voted FOR it, YOU are to blame.  Think on that.  Or don't.  Hell, you'll be dead before it has full impact anyway.  Why worry?

Why worry? I have grandchildren that I love. 

Matter of fact I didn't vote for it. Or against it. I admit to being conflicted about it, and mainly because the stuff is so much more potent than "back in the day". 
But the issue of "the young" is a problem with booze too. However, I'm suspecting that the THC in MJ might be more harmful to young brains than hard booze. 
"A mind is a terrible thing to waste" is more than a slogan.

Answers I don't have. 
Reply
#27
(07-09-2015, 10:08 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: ....... and mainly because the stuff is so much more potent than "back in the day". 
.....

I remember some good shit back in the 70's, just wasn't that much to be had.
Mostly cheap Mexican was widely available..

You had to smoke more of it to get the high that can be obtained for much less today.

So I would say today's weed is safer, because you don't have to smoke as much and less smoke is a good thing.
Reply
#28
Wonky, I think you and Hugo need to get real. How many 12 to 17 year olds will NOW smoke pot because it's legal for adults?
Do either one of you think kids today couldn't easily get weed any time they want it ALREADY?

Do you two seriously think that now that it's legal for adults a significant amount of teens who didn't smoke before will suddenly look for weed even though for them it's STILL illegal?
Reply
#29
(07-09-2015, 10:08 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 09:51 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 09:29 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 06:28 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 12:46 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Just remember, you can screw with 'me but you can't shoot 'em. And They WILL come back. 

A bit off subject, but still kind of points to the same stuff: How do you find a vegan at a party? You don't have to, they will find you. 

Can't I shot 'em with my paintball gun? It's not a real firearm.  Wink

Okay. Back to the Topic for a minute.
Listening to a podcast last night (can't remember which one) and the host was interviewing three "experts" who had views about the new pot laws, mostly in Colorado. What they all agreed about was that MJ is really not good for brains of young folks 12-17 years. They are concerned because the stuff these days packs a much better high. 
Gave me pause. They claim to have all kinds of science to back it up. (No, I didn't search for it)
So, how do we go about keeping the stuff away from these young minds? 

An issue? 

Of course it's an issue!  Didn't you notice anyone against it passing into law?

Think ahead 20 years, which equals two "generations".  They won't have any context to compare it to; no different than beer.  Less minds will make it into the actual intellectual realm, and more minds will be wasted.

And if you voted FOR it, YOU are to blame.  Think on that.  Or don't.  Hell, you'll be dead before it has full impact anyway.  Why worry?

Why worry? I have grandchildren that I love. 

Matter of fact I didn't vote for it. Or against it. I admit to being conflicted about it, and mainly because the stuff is so much more potent than "back in the day". 
But the issue of "the young" is a problem with booze too. However, I'm suspecting that the THC in MJ might be more harmful to young brains than hard booze. 
"A mind is a terrible thing to waste" is more than a slogan.

Answers I don't have. 

I'm suspecting that the THC in MJ might be more harmful to young brains than hard booze.











I can almost guarantee you that it's all about how much and how often a person uses either drug. Sure if some kid smokes weed all through junior high and high school It could be harmful to their brain.
 But if the kid drinks booze at the same rate it will be harmful to their brain and their health because they will be an alcoholic for life.
IMO if either happens then their parents have their heads up their ass and don't see it?...  the kid would probably never amounted to much anyway.
Alcohol is very addictive and very harmful. It also affects the brain in a way that is MORE dangerous than what MJ does to a brain.
Reply
#30
(07-09-2015, 10:08 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Why worry? I have grandchildren that I love. 

You're an Athiest, so why does it matter?
Reply
#31
(07-09-2015, 11:12 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 10:08 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 09:51 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 09:29 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 06:28 PM)Cuzz Wrote: Can't I shot 'em with my paintball gun? It's not a real firearm.  Wink

Okay. Back to the Topic for a minute.
Listening to a podcast last night (can't remember which one) and the host was interviewing three "experts" who had views about the new pot laws, mostly in Colorado. What they all agreed about was that MJ is really not good for brains of young folks 12-17 years. They are concerned because the stuff these days packs a much better high. 
Gave me pause. They claim to have all kinds of science to back it up. (No, I didn't search for it)
So, how do we go about keeping the stuff away from these young minds? 

An issue? 

Of course it's an issue!  Didn't you notice anyone against it passing into law?

Think ahead 20 years, which equals two "generations".  They won't have any context to compare it to; no different than beer.  Less minds will make it into the actual intellectual realm, and more minds will be wasted.

And if you voted FOR it, YOU are to blame.  Think on that.  Or don't.  Hell, you'll be dead before it has full impact anyway.  Why worry?

Why worry? I have grandchildren that I love. 

Matter of fact I didn't vote for it. Or against it. I admit to being conflicted about it, and mainly because the stuff is so much more potent than "back in the day". 
But the issue of "the young" is a problem with booze too. However, I'm suspecting that the THC in MJ might be more harmful to young brains than hard booze. 
"A mind is a terrible thing to waste" is more than a slogan.

Answers I don't have. 

I'm suspecting that the THC in MJ might be more harmful to young brains than hard booze.











I can almost guarantee you that it's all about how much and how often a person uses either drug. Sure if some kid smokes weed all through junior high and high school It could be harmful to their brain.
 But if the kid drinks booze at the same rate it will be harmful to their brain and their health because they will be an alcoholic for life.
IMO if either happens then their parents have their heads up their ass and don't see it?...  the kid would probably never amounted to much anyway.
Alcohol is very addictive and very harmful. It also affects the brain in a way that is MORE dangerous than what MJ does to a brain.
You are probably right on all counts. Can't keep them from doing what they are  going to do, and "legal" has nothing to do with it except maybe making it a tiny bit easier for them to get. Our best bet is to talk with them as best we can and make sure they understand what they are dealing with. 
Reply
#32
(07-10-2015, 05:22 AM)Hugo Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 10:08 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Why worry? I have grandchildren that I love. 

You're an Athiest, so why does it matter?

Sounds like YOU have been smoking wacky weed! What does my being a nonbeliever have to do with my love of my grandkids and wanting the best for them? 
Reply
#33
(07-10-2015, 06:51 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(07-10-2015, 05:22 AM)Hugo Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 10:08 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Why worry? I have grandchildren that I love. 

You're an Athiest, so why does it matter?

Sounds like YOU have been smoking wacky weed! What does my being a nonbeliever have to do with my love of my grandkids and wanting the best for them? 
He is a moron. Now please don't tell me not to say things like that.  Smiling
Reply
#34
(07-10-2015, 05:22 AM)Hugo Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 10:08 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Why worry? I have grandchildren that I love. 

You're an Athiest, so why does it matter?

I'm pretty sure that is the most ridiculous thing you've ever posted.  
Reply
#35
(07-10-2015, 06:49 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 11:12 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 10:08 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 09:51 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 09:29 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Okay. Back to the Topic for a minute.
Listening to a podcast last night (can't remember which one) and the host was interviewing three "experts" who had views about the new pot laws, mostly in Colorado. What they all agreed about was that MJ is really not good for brains of young folks 12-17 years. They are concerned because the stuff these days packs a much better high. 
Gave me pause. They claim to have all kinds of science to back it up. (No, I didn't search for it)
So, how do we go about keeping the stuff away from these young minds? 

An issue? 

Of course it's an issue!  Didn't you notice anyone against it passing into law?

Think ahead 20 years, which equals two "generations".  They won't have any context to compare it to; no different than beer.  Less minds will make it into the actual intellectual realm, and more minds will be wasted.

And if you voted FOR it, YOU are to blame.  Think on that.  Or don't.  Hell, you'll be dead before it has full impact anyway.  Why worry?

Why worry? I have grandchildren that I love. 

Matter of fact I didn't vote for it. Or against it. I admit to being conflicted about it, and mainly because the stuff is so much more potent than "back in the day". 
But the issue of "the young" is a problem with booze too. However, I'm suspecting that the THC in MJ might be more harmful to young brains than hard booze. 
"A mind is a terrible thing to waste" is more than a slogan.

Answers I don't have. 

I'm suspecting that the THC in MJ might be more harmful to young brains than hard booze.











I can almost guarantee you that it's all about how much and how often a person uses either drug. Sure if some kid smokes weed all through junior high and high school It could be harmful to their brain.
 But if the kid drinks booze at the same rate it will be harmful to their brain and their health because they will be an alcoholic for life.
IMO if either happens then their parents have their heads up their ass and don't see it?...  the kid would probably never amounted to much anyway.
Alcohol is very addictive and very harmful. It also affects the brain in a way that is MORE dangerous than what MJ does to a brain.
You are probably right on all counts. Can't keep them from doing what they are  going to do, and "legal" has nothing to do with it except maybe making it a tiny bit easier for them to get. Our best bet is to talk with them as best we can and make sure they understand what they are dealing with. 

ABSOLUTELY... Had that talk with my grandson. I told him what a loser is , looks like and does. One sure sign is smoking weed all the time.
Reply
#36
(07-10-2015, 07:52 AM)Scrapper Wrote:
(07-10-2015, 05:22 AM)Hugo Wrote:
(07-09-2015, 10:08 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Why worry? I have grandchildren that I love. 

You're an Athiest, so why does it matter?

I'm pretty sure that is the most ridiculous thing you've ever posted.  

 Yeah it makes no sense whatsoever.
Reply
#37
Quote:President Barack Obama has commuted the prison sentences of 46 drug offenders, saying they were not "hardened criminals" and their punishments didn't match the crimes they committed.


Obama said the move was part of his larger attempt to reform the criminal justice system. He is expected to speak about justice reform Tuesday at the NAACP's annual convention, and on Thursday he will become the first president to visit a federal prison.
Reply
#38
(07-13-2015, 10:24 AM)Scrapper Wrote:
Quote:President Barack Obama has commuted the prison sentences of 46 drug offenders, saying they were not "hardened criminals" and their punishments didn't match the crimes they committed.


Obama said the move was part of his larger attempt to reform the criminal justice system. He is expected to speak about justice reform Tuesday at the NAACP's annual convention, and on Thursday he will become the first president to visit a federal prison.

I voted for Mr. Obama. Generally speaking, I'm glad he is the president and that Mr. Romney is not. That said, I've often been disappointed in Mr. Obama's decisions and performance in office. (Also very pleased with many of his decisions) 

This is one example. 

I think this is "executive overreach" and those in state prisons should have been released by governors or legislatures, and those in federal prisons should have been released by judges at the direction of the Attorney General. 
Reply
#39
(07-14-2015, 09:16 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(07-13-2015, 10:24 AM)Scrapper Wrote:
Quote:President Barack Obama has commuted the prison sentences of 46 drug offenders, saying they were not "hardened criminals" and their punishments didn't match the crimes they committed.


Obama said the move was part of his larger attempt to reform the criminal justice system. He is expected to speak about justice reform Tuesday at the NAACP's annual convention, and on Thursday he will become the first president to visit a federal prison.

I voted for Mr. Obama. Generally speaking, I'm glad he is the president and that Mr. Romney is not. That said, I've often been disappointed in Mr. Obama's decisions and performance in office. (Also very pleased with many of his decisions) 

This is one example. 

I think this is "executive overreach" and those in state prisons should have been released by governors or legislatures, and those in federal prisons should have been released by judges at the direction of the Attorney General. 

Is there a mechanism to even do that?
Reply
#40
(07-14-2015, 05:48 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(07-14-2015, 09:16 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(07-13-2015, 10:24 AM)Scrapper Wrote:
Quote:President Barack Obama has commuted the prison sentences of 46 drug offenders, saying they were not "hardened criminals" and their punishments didn't match the crimes they committed.


Obama said the move was part of his larger attempt to reform the criminal justice system. He is expected to speak about justice reform Tuesday at the NAACP's annual convention, and on Thursday he will become the first president to visit a federal prison.

I voted for Mr. Obama. Generally speaking, I'm glad he is the president and that Mr. Romney is not. That said, I've often been disappointed in Mr. Obama's decisions and performance in office. (Also very pleased with many of his decisions) 

This is one example. 

I think this is "executive overreach" and those in state prisons should have been released by governors or legislatures, and those in federal prisons should have been released by judges at the direction of the Attorney General. 

Is there a mechanism to even do that?

Of course not! I was suggesting that a governor or someone from the legislature dig a hole in the shower that connects to a tunnel with a motorcycle in it.  Razz
Yes, a governor can commute any sentence. Thinking about it now, I guess the legislature can't cut anyone loose. Unless of course they cut a hole in the shower and.... Laughing

I just think it strange for the president to commute the sentences of drug dealers. I think (maybe) he is trying to "send a message" that we gotta quit locking up folks for minor drug busts. Hell, if nothing else we can't afford it. And it's mute anyway: He's done it. No harm, no foul. 
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)