President Who Smokes Signs Anti-Smoking Bill
June 22nd, 2009, 2:40 PM EDT
Maybe this is his way to stop smoking. The anti-smoking bill allows the FDA to reduce the amount of nicotine in smoking products. Products will have to have large graphic labels, and “low tar” and “light” labels are banned, along with candy flavoring. Ingredients have to be made public, and marketing campaigns - especially to children - are forbidden.
It’s good for our health and good for the environment, but are smokers going to welcome it?
Do what I say, not as I do.(because i’m better than you)
RDM Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I heard on twitter that he accidentally burned a hole in MO’s Burqa.
JFA Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I wonder if the obamoid knows that smoking in any federal building is banned, the white house is a federalyy owned building. But, he can probably do a little blow now and then. :)
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I used to love to smoke clove cigarettes from time to time. I hate that they are essentially off the market now. I know the risks involved and took them every once in a while. But it’s still a good bill.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
It’s good for our health; good for the environment, but are smokers going to welcome it?
Well, let’s check it out:
1. How did drinkers take to abolition?
2. How do pot smokers react to weed being illegal?
Yup. Awesome bill.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I am no fan of cigarettes. They cause a multitude of cancers among other horrible things.
But, if people choose to slowly poison their own bodies, why should the government interfere? Will the government next start regulating the amount of sugar in donuts? (I guess in some ways they have.)
Large graphic labels?! Give me a break. A warning should be clearly placed, but people know the risks. We don’t need to dumb everything down.
SMOKING BAD! YOU SMOKE = BAD! CANCER BAD!
Although, the case could be made that smokers who have children are essentially poisoning them. Secondhand smoke that the children have absolutely no control over. Much like I think safety belt laws are inane, except for children. On the other hand, parents can feed children all sorts of unhealthy stuff that can affect a child’s health dramatically.
flap Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
OH, and for all of you libs who looooooove calling conservatives hypocrites, doesn’t this make Obama a hypocrite?
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Nope, it means that despite his own nicotine addiction he’s able to step back and look at an issue objectively—something absolutely alien to the radical rightwing extremists.
flap Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Just like Senator Ensign, despite his own adultery, is able to step back and look an issue objectively. Right?
Q.E.D.
pino Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
ZING! Well played.
average james Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Good shot Flap,
I gotta admit.
flap Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
And for the record, I don’t think Obama is a hypocrite, I just enjoy turning the tables on the labeling. :)
Daddio Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Hey Rocky…CHECKMATE!!
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Well I must admit I’m surprised you actually know a word as long as “checkmate,” and appear able to use it right in a sentence.
Daddio Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Well thank you Rocky. You’re actually a pretty nice guy. :)
TDro319 Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
” doesn’t this make Obama a hypocrite?”
I don’t recall Obama preaching the dangers of smoking or calling for the impeachment of any politician who smokes. That’s the difference.
Same with Ensign. He sure loved to villify other adulterers while overlooking his own shortcomings.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
“But, if people choose to slowly poison their own bodies, why should the government interfere?”
Because freedom doesn’t mean you’re free to do any damn thing you might want, no matter how stupid it might be.
flap Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I hope you don’t own a Rottweiler, because they are dangerous dogs. They should be banned. Freedom doesn’t mean you should be able to do things like own dangerous dog breeds.
Q.E.D.
RDM Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Rottweilers are # 2 behind Pit Bulls for attacking humans. They should be banned. We need more dangerous dog laws. Why would anyone even want a gangsta Rottweiler. They are so evil and scary.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Okay, I’ll give up the dogs when you turn in your guns.
Daddio Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Maybe we could use our guns to get rid of the dogs. :)
Juussst Kidding Rocky. :)
RDM Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Dogs first.
DJ Dalek Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Hey, rotties are good dogs, so are pit bulls! You can blame breeders, owners, and Micheal Vick for their admittedly aggressive demeanor, but please don’t spread the media hype about it. Truth is, any dog raised in a loving family will be nice and even-tempered.
Nero Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Yup, liberalism is about rationing freedom.
OldLefty Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Nero said,
“Yup, liberalism is about rationing freedom.”
………………………….
Liberals have been saying that about conservatives for years, no fair copying!
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 6:39 pm
“…liberalism is about rationing freedom.”
Yeah and then we’re gonna tax what we ration, so get out yet checkbook, sonny.
Kregg Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Rocky said: Because freedom doesn’t mean you’re free to do any damn thing you might want, no matter how stupid it might be.
K: Then you’d agree that marijuana should remain illegal?
Um Cara Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:48 am
Rocky the liberal doofus has argued against marijuana legalization in the past.
And cigarettes still aren’t illegal, by the way. And nor should they be.
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Cigarette companies win again.
Less nicotine for the addicted will cause them to have to smoke MORE cigarette$
And NO Flap, it makes Obama a president who signs a Bill that has gone through both houses and who has a cigarette occasionally.
Beats invading WMDless countries on trumped up Cheney “intelligence” to settle a personal Vendetta (”he tried to kill my daddy”) and prove the FAIL of the Neocon Middle East Domino Democracy Theory.
flap Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
“And NO Flap, it makes Obama a president who signs a Bill that has gone through both houses and who has a cigarette occasionally.”
Just like Senator Ensign is a senator who is for marital fidelity that many other conservative leaders talk about but he gets a little RANDY occasionally for someone other than his wife!
Wow, I am hot today!
average james Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Knock it off Flap,
cut it out man,
nix this stuff,
enough already,
stop the madness,
nip it in the bud,
Skid tires on pavement S.T.O.P.,
Put it in park bro,
just say no,
etc……..
Hehehe
4moreyears Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:16 pm
LOL Average James!
JFA Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Hey, Senator Ensign is still more popular than harry Reid is though, yeah.
jasperjava Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:03 am
Even Democrats can’t stand that wishy-washy Republican-toady wet noodle Harry Reid. He needs to get some cojones and stand up to the Reich-wing.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:14 am
what’s so republican about Harry Reid…that he doesn’t think women should mutilate their fetus’s or that he supports traditional definitions of marriage?
Anything else?
TDro319 Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
“what’s so republican about Harry Reid”
Harry Reid is a spineless jellyfish and we have no use for him. He’s afraid to stand up to the republicans on anything, but the first to point out the faults of his fellow democrats. He should really switch parties.
“that he doesn’t think women should mutilate their fetus’s”
Is that what republicans are calling pro-choice nowadays? I wonder what they think of 4000+ of our finest being sent to their deaths for profit.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 24th, 2009 at 2:39 am
I wonder what they think of 4000+ of our finest being sent to their deaths
–
War Heroes…like GI Joe.
Um Cara Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:52 am
Cigarette companies win again.
Yep, I loaded up on more Altria stock (Phillip Morris, i.e. Marlboro) when it started looking like this would pass. It is excellent for established tobacco companies (especially Altria, being the largest).
Kregg Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:45 am
OH, Um! What an uncaring money monger! Owning stock in corporations who are killing – I say KILLING – people for profit! Hmm, I wonder if tobacco corporations are ‘too big to fail’ and therefore ripe for takeover by BO.
Um Cara Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:48 am
I’ve always been pro capitalism, and pro freedom.
The government already is making plenty off of tobacco, I think – I doubt they are in anyone’s crosshair (and this bill certainly does nothing to harm the tobacco companies, it in fact keeps the competition out).
Kregg Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
Um said: The government already is making plenty off of tobacco, I think – I doubt they are in anyone’s crosshair (and this bill certainly does nothing to harm the tobacco companies, it in fact keeps the competition out).
K: I would think that reducing tar and nicotene in cigarettes by, say, 20% would simply increase the number of cigarettes sold by 20%. If you need “X” number of grams of nicotene to satisfy the craving why would reducing the amount of nicotene in cigs reduce the number you smoke? You’d simply buy 20% more cigs! Oops, another unintended consequence to social engineering by govt…
Um Cara Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:07 am
Oops, another unintended consequence to social engineering by govt…
What makes you think it is unintended? More cancer sticks sold = more tax revenue. I don’t think these politicians are as stupid as they want us to think they are.
Kregg Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:22 am
K prv: Oops, another unintended consequence to social engineering by govt…
Um said: What makes you think it is unintended? More cancer sticks sold = more tax revenue. I don’t think these politicians are as stupid as they want us to think they are.
K: I live by an axiom I read in college: “Never put down to conspiracy that which can be explained by stupidity”. Given the current dysfunction in congress this seems the more obvious answer…
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Man, I gotta quit smoking.
flap Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:26 pm
AJ! Say it ain’t so! It’ll take your lungs around 7 years to recover even if you stop today! STOP!
average james Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Easier said,
I quit for 3 years, then started again 8 years ago.
I quit drinkin’ and druggin’, been 7yrs10mths now.
Smokings been a real b#tch for me.
Wanting and doing are two seperate things.
craig7120 Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I feel ya AJ, smoking sucks.. no pun intended. Its a horrible habit, I said many times if they go up in price I’m quiting. Wrong!!
Kregg Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Serious question: Do either of you, James and Craig, feel that advertising or tobacco company marketing lured you into smoking?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:15 am
I have a friend exactly like you, she was really into Meth and alcohol, she’s been clean from drugs and booze for like 5 years now, but for the life of her she can’t stop smoking.
Kregg Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:19 am
James said: Wanting and doing are two seperate things.
K: This is the same dilemma as salvation, James. Go to the source of your salvation for the power to quit. Thats VERY Eugene Peterson.
average james Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 am
Kregg,
Nah, no advertising lured me in. Early teens and I just wanted to be cool like other people my age.
That and everybody telling me I shouldn’t, it’s like the old “keep off the grass” sign. I just have to walk on it. In my old age I am learning that my knee jerk rebellion to everything is not a desirable character trait. In fact, I’m learning that my first thought/reaction is usually inappropriate. My first thought/reaction to almost everything is F#CK YOU !!!! No kidding, it’s a real chore sometimes to simply coexist.
I’ve made some progress over the years. Progress rather than perfection is a more attainable goal.
Go to the source, very sound advice brother Kregg. Eugene Petersenish, yah.
Kregg Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:02 am
James said: Nah, no advertising lured me in. Early teens and I just wanted to be cool like other people my age.
K: Its interesting that tobacco marketing is blamed for young smokers but I believe you are 100% right in that it’s peer relationships that promote beginning smokers and NOT Madison Avenue.
J: That and everybody telling me I shouldn’t, it’s like the old “keep off the grass” sign. I just have to walk on it. In my old age I am learning that my knee jerk rebellion to everything is not a desirable character trait.
K: Could it be a lingering reaction to the inappropriate teaching methods of your parents? Some people manage to teach their kids the exact opposite of what they wanted them to learn. Youthful rebellion against parental guidance is, IMO, almost assured when the parent can’t get the message out in a way that a teen can comprehend as being in his best interests.
J; In fact, I’m learning that my first thought/reaction is usually inappropriate. My first thought/reaction to almost everything is F#CK YOU !!!! No kidding, it’s a real chore sometimes to simply coexist.
I’ve made some progress over the years. Progress rather than perfection is a more attainable goal.
K: “By beholding we become changed”. Not Mr. Peterson’s words but an older translation that is just as packed with meaning. Keep at it. I have a book that might be interesting to you if you’ll send me a snail mail address via Nahradog@aol.com. And, no, its not a JW pamphlet… ;-)
J: Go to the source, very sound advice brother Kregg. Eugene Petersenish, yah.
K: “EP”, a little codeword so as to avoid the bible haters on this board… ;-)
average james Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:14 am
Good stuff Kregg,
I agree.
I feel that alot of us have developed friendships here at liberaland. I’m glad to get to know you.
Kregg Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:25 am
James said: I feel that alot of us have developed friendships here at liberaland. I’m glad to get to know you.
K: Likewise. I’d like to send you the book – I’d like to get your opinion on it. Send me a snail mail address (I’ll send it to General Delivery if you want to keep your address private). It really helped me and I’d like to see what you think of it.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 24th, 2009 at 2:42 am
In fact, I’m learning that my first thought/reaction is usually inappropriate.
—
have you ever tried the advice of George Louis Costanza…do the opposite.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
“Man, I gotta quit smoking.”
You can’t quit until you actually want to quit, and then what you have to do is actually stop smoking, and that’s the worst part: not smoking. The rest is easy.
average james Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Yep.
Kregg Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:16 am
James said: Man, I gotta quit smoking.
K: Here’s rooting for you to do so… I suppose you’ve tried all the obvious routes?
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Actually, you start accruing benefits at something like 20 minutes after your final cig.
http://whyquit.com/whyquit/A_Benefits_Time_Table.html
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Out and about time.
Check ya later gang.
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
THE HEIGHT OF HYPOCRISY!
It’s not that Barry smokes and he passes a smoking bill (Actually, I think that’s pretty mature of him)
The Hypocrisy comes from the Democrats and Republicans who moan and decry the effects of smoking yet blow off individual responsibility. Does, “Say no to drugs,” mean anything to anybody.
Somehow it’s the cigarette companies fault that people choose to smoke. Why do people who want to make an issue of a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body have a problem with what I choose to do with mine. Last time I checked, smoking was legal.
Finally, if it’s so rotten and terrible, why don’t they ban it… they won’t because the pukes want the tax money. Tell you what; Democrats or Republicans – they are not worth the dynamite to blow them up! Someone ought to beat Kennedy to death by whacking him with Ted Stevens!
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:11 am
You call my president Barry. I call yours a war criminal.
Um Cara Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:55 am
Does, “Say no to drugs,” mean anything to anybody.
You mean like those kooky religions that do not allow folks to take drugs or seek any medical help from doctors?
TDro319 Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I actually agree with Helipilot. Why should the cigarette companies be held accountable for smokers who wish to buy their product?
OldLefty Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
As a former smoker, it’s not holding them accountable for smokers as it is holding them accountable for adding ingredients like ammonia, formaldehyde and sweeteners to make them more addictive, without your knowing about it.
Actually, the movie The Insiders with Al Pacino, Russell Crowe and Christopher Plummer, was a true story about a chemist who tried to expose Big Tobacco, when they lied to Congress about having knowledge of addtitives.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Yeah. We have known for how many years what ingredients are in cigarettes and people STILL CHOOSE to smoke??
June 22nd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
“Does, “Say no to drugs,” mean anything to anybody.”
Ya, that’s the spinoff on the Nancy Regan slogan “Just say no,” which is a nice bumper sticker, but otherwise totally meaningless and utterly useless.
“Somehow it’s the cigarette companies fault…”
The billion dollar cigarette corporations have been lying about the effects of cigarettes for going on a hundred years, and at this point they have about as much moral authority as Heinrich Himmler, and they should get down on their knees and give thanks if they are permitted to remain in business.
“Why do people who want to make an issue…”
Aborting a fetus is a legal medical procedure. Inhaling a few hundred toxic chemicals into your lungs is signal of a physical addiction, and quite possibly suicidal impulses, which ought to be treated by medical professionals.
goliath43 Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Rocky
I read some of your comments just for the entertainment value cause I think you are a plant for Alan to keep his blog rolling but this one I almost fell off my chair laughing so hard. you really don’t believe what you write do you. Comparing smoking a cigarette to abortion is a reach even for you.
Helipilot Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:31 am
Apparently, saying no to anything just doesn’t work for you. So then, the question is, “When does one take responsibilities for their choices?” Never?
You are obviously very young or you haven’t been paying attention to history. When I started smoking, more than 4 decades ago, they were called “Cancer Sticks.” Everyone with half a brain cell knows they are harmful.
They just choose to do it anyway.
Why must we be set upon by people like you who want to force your way of thinking on everybody else because you see, just like abortion, smoking is legal. Smoking is legal and that’s my argument. If we allow people to have choices over their bodies through an abortion because it’s their body, why can’t I decide to smoke.
You can’t have it both ways.
There are millions of people out there who are smoking and are probably a lot more psychologically adjusted than you or me but they choose to smoke. You see, in America, it’s legal. There are people who choose to jump out of a perfectly good aircraft. I may not like it of think it’s dangerous but, this is America and it’s legal.
The bottom line is that the lawmakers are disingenuous. If you feel that strongly against smoking, you should join me in my cry and say that anything short of making it illegal is just a joke.
June 22nd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Don’t know why anyone is surprised. HE tells us to live on a budget and cut back, wants to limit pay, and didn’t want companies using private jets all the while he uses air force one as his personal date mobile. No surprise that someone who lives by “do as I say not as I do” would sign an anti-smoking bill even though they smoke.
Next thing you know they will want to tax OUR health plans but not the unions that this adminstration is in the sack with. Oh wait, that’s already what they are talking about doing.
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:32 am
I seem to recall you getting upset with me when I called Limpballs a drug addict.
Of course, since you are the original church lady, I’m sure you’ve never had to kick any bad habits. Or are you the kind that gets all holier than thou when you have kicked a bad habit?
Um Cara Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 am
Bliss didn’t call Obama a drug addict (though he certainly is one).
Too bad Obama can’t enjoy a far safer drug, like marijuana. Presumably he gave that one up and has instead stuck with the far more invidious nicotine.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Nice spin SGL. Are you still dizzy?
I get upset with anyone who laughs about an addiction. It’s not funny.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:17 am
Um said: Too bad Obama can’t enjoy a far safer drug, like marijuana.
K: Serious question: Do you claim there are NO after-effects or health issues associated with MJ use? I really don’t know much about MJ use but find it hard to believe that prolonged usage doesn’t leave scars…
Um Cara Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:02 am
Do you claim there are NO after-effects or health issues associated with MJ use?,/b>
There are after-effects and health issues associated with MJ use, yes. Though it is less harmful than tobacco or alcohol (especially when vaporized or eaten, as opposed to smoking).
It has a great number of medicinal properties, many of which are still being discovered (including anti cancer).
But, like alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, or sugar – there are negative consequences as well. Altering consciousness is a basic human drive, there are those who choose not to (as there are those who choose to be celibate), but for the most part – people are going to find ways to intoxicate themselves. We shouldn’t destroy people’s lives because of it (remember, 5% of the world population, 25% of the world’s prison population – mostly because we lock folks up for drugs, and most of that is for pot).
I can usually see where people are coming from on most political issues, even if I strongly disagree with them. I can not understand why so many Americans are OK with sticking people in a box for years at a time for pot crimes.
To me, the crazy incarceration rate and prison conditions are the two most important domestic political issues we face in America.
Um Cara Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
oops. First sentence should be bold, and attributed to Kregg. The rest is me, and should not be bold.
Or maybe it should be bold, I do feel like yelling about this issue.
Let’s hope Senator Webb really does try to do something about this incarceration problem we have in the United States.
Kregg Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:20 am
Um said: There are after-effects and health issues associated with MJ use, yes. Though it is less harmful than tobacco or alcohol (especially when vaporized or eaten, as opposed to smoking).
K: How does one ‘vaporize’ it? And, I suppose eating it is less effective as an intoxicant?
U: It has a great number of medicinal properties, many of which are still being discovered (including anti cancer).
K: Is it ‘anti-cancer’ or simply a pain control method?
U: But, like alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, or sugar – there are negative consequences as well.
U: Altering consciousness is a basic human drive, there are those who choose not to (as there are those who choose to be celibate), but for the most part – people are going to find ways to intoxicate themselves.
K: I guess I”m weird but I don’t feel any basic drive to intoxicate myself. The world’s bad enough as it is without reducing my ability to function in it. Do you suppose intoxication is NOT a basic drive but, rather, an attempt to find an inner peace of some sort?
U: We shouldn’t destroy people’s lives because of it (remember, 5% of the world population, 25% of the world’s prison population – mostly because we lock folks up for drugs, and most of that is for pot).
K: I’d say we are locking these people up for breaking the law against drug use and NOT for their addiction.
U: I can usually see where people are coming from on most political issues, even if I strongly disagree with them. I can not understand why so many Americans are OK with sticking people in a box for years at a time for pot crimes.
K: Because they are crimes. Now, I’d agree that we need to re-think the punishment for illegal drug behavior but a crime is a crime and the criminal justice system is addressing THAT issue. Just like we put a guy in jail for stealing something and NOT for his kleptomania.
U: To me, the crazy incarceration rate and prison conditions are the two most important domestic political issues we face in America.
K: Whats crazy is the number of people who ignore the criminal statutes in order to take recreational drugs. I suspect we will eventually dumb down our criminal laws on illicit drugs because they have little effect. Sort of like admitting that prohibition didn’t work because so many people WANTED to drink alcohol.
Um Cara Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:35 am
Is it ‘anti-cancer’ or simply a pain control method?
Anti cancer (but yes, pain control as well)
How does one ‘vaporize’ it?
Wit a vaporizor :^) –you heat it to a temperature which vaporizes the active ingredients, but not to the level of combustion.
And, I suppose eating it is less effective as an intoxicant?
No, eating it is far more intoxicating, but it is also harder to control the level of intoxication (because it takes longer to feel the effects). The effects are also longer lasting when eaten.
I guess I”m weird but I don’t feel any basic drive to intoxicate myself.
No, just the way you are wired. Alan had a guy on his show one night who did not have a sex drive. We are all wired a bit different, but the majority of people have a drive to intoxicate.
Because they are crimes.
Yes, and so is speeding – but we don’t lock people up for it. It is ridiculous to waste money and lives with such disproportionate punishment.
Whats crazy is the number of people who ignore the criminal statutes in order to take recreational drugs. I suspect we will eventually dumb down our criminal laws on illicit drugs because they have little effect. Sort of like admitting that prohibition didn’t work because so many people WANTED to drink alcohol.
Also, prohibition didn’t work because juries refused to convict people. Should any judge be foolish enough to sit me on a jury, I can assure you I will find any defendant ‘not guilty’ for any pot crime, whatsoever.
I encourage others to do the same.
Kregg Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:47 am
Um said: Wit a vaporizor :^) –you heat it to a temperature which vaporizes the active ingredients, but not to the level of combustion.
K: Yeah, I figured as much… ;-). So it steams off the chemicals on the leaf? How effective is that compared to smoking?
K prv: And, I suppose eating it is less effective as an intoxicant?
U: No, eating it is far more intoxicating, but it is also harder to control the level of intoxication (because it takes longer to feel the effects). The effects are also longer lasting when eaten.
K: Can you get over-intoxicated? What are the signs of such?
K prv: I guess I”m weird but I don’t feel any basic drive to intoxicate myself.
U: No, just the way you are wired. Alan had a guy on his show one night who did not have a sex drive. We are all wired a bit different, but the majority of people have a drive to intoxicate.
K: Well, thats one more guy who is an evolutionary dead end… ;-)
K prv: Because they are crimes.
U: Yes, and so is speeding – but we don’t lock people up for it. It is ridiculous to waste money and lives with such disproportionate punishment.
K: Well, they WILL lock you up for speeding if you speed enough. I’m guessing its sort of the same thing for MJ. In CA they don’t even arrest you for carrying less than a certain amount of MJ.
K prv: Whats crazy is the number of people who ignore the criminal statutes in order to take recreational drugs. I suspect we will eventually dumb down our criminal laws on illicit drugs because they have little effect. Sort of like admitting that prohibition didn’t work because so many people WANTED to drink alcohol.
U: Also, prohibition didn’t work because juries refused to convict people. Should any judge be foolish enough to sit me on a jury, I can assure you I will find any defendant ‘not guilty’ for any pot crime, whatsoever.
K: But you’d be ignoring the truth that a crime was committed, wouldn’t you, out of a disagreement over whether the law should be in place in the first place. Disagreeing with the law and testing a case against the law should be two different things, shouldn’t it?
U: I encourage others to do the same.
K: Ah, Um the agitator! Maybe you’ll run for prez one day? ;-) Seems to have worked for the current guy…
Um Cara Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
So it steams off the chemicals on the leaf?
Only if you have a really crummy connection, hopefully you are steaming chemicals off the bud ;^) –you smoke the flowers, not the leaves.
How effective is that compared to smoking?
Supposedly very effective, though there is no taste (or rather, it all tastes the same – supposedly tastes like popcorn). Never done it myself, however.
Can you get over-intoxicated? What are the signs of such?
Yes (though you can’t overdose in the way that you can with alcohol – i.e. it won’t kill you).
It can make you pass out, throw up, hallucinate, become paranoid, generally uncomfortable, etc… Folks often eat too much the first time they eat it, then never eat it again – because of the bad experience.
In Amsterdam they have warning signs for tourists re: the ’space cake’.
Well, they WILL lock you up for speeding if you speed enough. I’m guessing its sort of the same thing for MJ. In CA they don’t even arrest you for carrying less than a certain amount of MJ.
California leads the US in arresting people for MJ. But yes, small amounts won’t get you locked up in Cali.
But you’d be ignoring the truth that a crime was committed, wouldn’t you, out of a disagreement over whether the law should be in place in the first place. Disagreeing with the law and testing a case against the law should be two different things, shouldn’t it?
It is one of the responsibilities a jurist has. The jurists who refused to convict escaped slaves did the Right thing, even though those slaves broke the law.
Now, judges certainly don’t want jurists to nullify, and if in pretrial screening the prosecuting attorney or the judge asked me if I could convict the defendant for a pot crime, I would answer truthfully (but hell, the fact that I have a college degree would get me off of most juries). But if seated on the jury, I would take my responsibilities very seriously. And it would absolutely be my responsibility to find a pot crime defendant innocent.
Maybe you’ll run for prez one day? ;-) Seems to have worked for the current guy…
Indeed, one of the problems with smoking pot is you could become president (certainly our last three toked) or a gold medal winning Olympian.
Who wants that kind of fame?
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:51 am
Has anyone heard of ecigarettes ?
Vapor not combustion, no tar, carbon monoxide, famaldahyde etc.
Available in various flavors and nicotine strengths down to zero nicotine.
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
It’s go be productive time again.
Work is a four letter word…….come to think of it, so is food, so is rent.
Health care is considerably more than four letters.
He he he he
average james Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
OK now I really gotta go.
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:46 pm