|
OwlBot 2000 posted:That's the opposite of a loophole, but probably. On the one hand, they probably do want North American and European immigrants with job skills to move down there. On the other hand, the kind of people who'd move across the globe just for weed probably aren't the cream of the crop... Do you not even realize what kind of a stigmatizing statement that is? Weed is important to me for a number of personal reasons, and if I could easily relocate to another state or country with legal marijuana I'd have done so. I don't know if I'm the cream of the crop but I am certainly no loser. There's a lot of money to be made by doing this, including through immigration and tourism.
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
Drug tourism isn't that different than any other tourism. No one likes tourists except for those who make money off of it or enjoy the infrastructure it brings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:Do you not even realize what kind of a stigmatizing statement that is? Weed is important to me for a number of personal reasons, and if I could easily relocate to another state or country with legal marijuana I'd have done so. I don't know if I'm the cream of the crop but I am certainly no loser. There's a lot of money to be made by doing this, including through immigration and tourism. I support legalization, and it's great that Uruguay is doing this. Many people benefit greatly from it, especially if they've got medical or psychological needs, and smoking weed sure doesn't make someone a loser. I'm saying that the kind of people (without medical or psych reasons) who make it the center of their drat lives and would relocate to another country just for the weed probably don't have a lot going for them back home. On the other hand, I do consider a lot of single-issue LEGALIIIIZE IT types to be a bit loserish, especially when they're willing to throw everyone else under the bus by suppporting Ron Paul just to get weed legalized.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:I remember someone from the UK under the username fuctifino. Not sure if that's who you are referring to. Or should I say reefer-ing to. [derail] I'm still around. The court case knocked the stuffing out of my health (I was sentenced to 1 year imprisonment suspended for 2 years, no fine) and I simply drifted into the background to recover. I help out with NORML-UK and the UKCSC network when I can, but I'm pretty much retired from activism these days. [/derail]
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:I support legalization, and it's great that Uruguay is doing this. Many people benefit greatly from it, especially if they've got medical or psychological needs, and smoking weed sure doesn't make someone a loser. I'm saying that the kind of people (without medical or psych reasons) who make it the center of their drat lives and would relocate to another country just for the weed probably don't have a lot going for them back home. On the other hand, I do consider a lot of single-issue LEGALIIIIZE IT types to be a bit loserish, especially when they're willing to throw everyone else under the bus by suppporting Ron Paul just to get weed legalized. Nobody gives a gently caress how you feel about stoner stereotypes and if you can afford to move countries simply to smoke weed then you're probably pretty well off in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:I support legalization, and it's great that Uruguay is doing this. Many people benefit greatly from it, especially if they've got medical or psychological needs, and smoking weed sure doesn't make someone a loser. I'm saying that the kind of people (without medical or psych reasons) who make it the center of their drat lives and would relocate to another country just for the weed probably don't have a lot going for them back home. On the other hand, I do consider a lot of single-issue LEGALIIIIZE IT types to be a bit loserish, especially when they're willing to throw everyone else under the bus by suppporting Ron Paul just to get weed legalized. You're not hearing me. Who are you to say that someone is loserish or doing poorly if they want to make weed the center of their lives? People make video games the center of their lives, or any other thing you're not into. It's none of your drat business and you shouldn't go around saying people are lesser for it. They're not. You're lesser for saying they are. I don't see you protesting in the streets because we have no true leftist candidate to vote for, instead you vote for the closest, most productively viable candidate you can, closest to your own views. People who grow amazing marijuana make it the center of their lives, and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, god bless them, every one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:You're not hearing me. Who are you to say that someone is loserish or doing poorly if they want to make weed the center of their lives? People make video games the center of their lives, or any other thing you're not into. It's none of your drat business and you shouldn't go around saying people are lesser for it. They're not. You're lesser for saying they are. People can do all of those things and still contribute meaningfully to society, sure. But they'd better have something else going for them and not be totally one-dimensional if they want to convince another country they should be allowed residency. quote:I don't see you protesting in the streets because we have no true leftist candidate to vote for, You don't? We must not be in the same city. quote:instead you vote for the closest, most productively viable candidate you can, closest to your own views. Not typically, I don't. quote:People who grow amazing marijuana make it the center of their lives, and there's nothing wrong with that. Sure there is, if they do it to the exclusion of fighting injustice and alleviating suffering. Note that I'd say the same thing to someone equally obsessed with something I enjoy, or even their accounting career, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Drug tourism isn't that different than any other tourism. No one likes tourists except for those who make money off of it or enjoy the infrastructure it brings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:People can do all of those things and still contribute meaningfully to society, sure. But they'd better have something else going for them and not be totally one-dimensional if they want to convince another country they should be allowed residency. Why do you think being a farmer of a crop that makes people happy and hungry is not a meaningful contribution to society? Do you think other farmers do not make meaningful contributions to society?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Nobody - except some people in the Netherlands - likes drugs tourism Oktoberfest? How how about a little trip to wine country?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
I mean Amsterdam has a big problem from drug tourism but as far as I can tell all the damage comes from people who visit to get pissed drunk. Edit: At least I've never seen someone who was clearly high try to throw a bunch of bikes into a canal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Why do you think being a farmer of a crop that makes people happy and hungry is not a meaningful contribution to society? Do you think other farmers do not make meaningful contributions to society? Oh, growing and breeding is one thing I can respect. I'm talking about people who don't even do that but just smoke all day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Oktoberfest?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Oh, growing and breeding is one thing I can respect. I'm talking about people who don't even do that but just smoke all day. Who the gently caress are you to be sitting around deciding who is worth your respect and who isn't? Get off your high horse. If someone wants to sit around and smoke all day, that's their life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:I already specified that I'm talking about crossing the border simply to buy drugs. Hoardes of Brits hop the channel just to shop for booze from France every year. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2153612/Booze-cruise-Weak-euro-leads-rise-number-people-going-Channel-cheaper-alcohol.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Alcohol is legal in the UK. Hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Alcohol is legal in the UK. Hope this helps. I would be surprised if smuggling in large quantities of alcohol and not paying the appropriate taxes is legal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:I would be surprised if smuggling in large quantities of alcohol and not paying the appropriate taxes is legal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Alcohol is legal in the UK. Hope this helps. How is that relevant? Why won't the mayor of Calais ban Brits from liquor stores? R. Mute posted:I already specified that I'm talking about crossing the border simply to buy drugs. It's why the mayors of border towns in the Netherlands were the driving force behind the weed pass. Oh so now the mayors of the border town were the driving force behind the weed pass because tourists were taking their cannabis home (and that's against the law in their country of origin). KingEup fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Aug 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Why won't the mayor of Calais ban Brits from liquor stores? quote:Oh so now the mayors of the border town were the driving force behind the weed pass because cannabis is illegal elsewhere. KingEup posted:Oh so now the mayors of the border town were the driving force behind the weed pass because tourists were taking their cannabis home (and that's against the law in their country of origin). I'm not sure where this argument is going, anyway. Are you guys seriously arguing that countries like drug tourism or are you arguing that countries should like drug tourism? Because I've given you a couple examples of countries not liking drug tourism and the reason given for the Uruguayan-Only part of the law was explicitly said to be to prevent drug tourism. It's also mentioned in the same breath as the ban on moving the weed across the border, so this all seems pretty obvious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
CNN's' chief medical expert, Sanjay Gupta, has publicly apologized for "misleading" the public on marijuana.quote:Well, I am here to apologize. The whole thing is worth a read. It sorta comes off as baby's first awakening - he delves into the 1970 letter recommending marijuana be classified as schedule 1 on the basis of a lack of scientific evidence, addiction rates, though he somehow avoids bringing up William Randolph Hearst - but coming from a person of his prominence makes this a pretty big deal. Gupta has a documentary called "Weed" airing on CNN on sunday.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Misandrist Duck posted:CNN's' chief medical expert, Sanjay Gupta, has publicly apologized for "misleading" the public on marijuana. I know it's uncharitable of me but he should have been aware of this a long time ago. There's never been any excuse for anyone knowledgeable to oppose marijuana legalization. It seems like he's jumping on the bandwagon on something plenty of other people have been defending for a long, long time before now. I read his anti-pot article in 2009 and it was unpersuasive then and remains so. I did think his caution about use of pot by under-21's was interesting. I hadn't seen that argument made before, so it shows he was actually thinking about the issue at least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I know it's uncharitable of me but he should have been aware of this a long time ago. There's never been any excuse for anyone knowledgeable to oppose marijuana legalization. It seems like he's jumping on the bandwagon on something plenty of other people have been defending for a long, long time before now. I read his anti-pot article in 2009 and it was unpersuasive then and remains so. I agree. A real mea culpa wouldn't be "I didn't look hard enough". It would be "I played it safe and towed a line I knew was BS because I was gunning for Surgeon General at the time, and talking good science would've instantly scuttled that ambition." e: Per wikipedia, he put that piece out two days after CNN announced he was a contender for the position. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Aug 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:I agree. A real mea culpa wouldn't be "I didn't look hard enough". It would be "I played it safe and towed a line I knew was BS because I was gunning for Surgeon General at the time, and talking good science would've instantly scuttled that ambition." I hope you aren't being sarcastic, because this is exactly what he should have said.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
If you think he changed his mind because he was presented with new information I've got some beachfront property in Nevada to sell you.  He's CNN's doctor guy; he's paid to say whatever the company wants him to. Public opinion about marijuana has shifted, so rather than be left behind and disregarded as an outdated idiot he's apologized and bent to be more in line with the popular opinion. I mean, it's obvious to anyone who has done even the most basic research that marijuana is not as harmful as any other scheduled drug, and certainly doesn't belong in schedule I. For an actual PhD that has been studying marijuana for years, you'd think he would've stumbled on the same information that every other marijuana proponent has been citing for years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I hope you aren't being sarcastic, because this is exactly what he should have said. Feel free to expand on why, then. I think it's apparent that any blindness was willful, and a sincere apology rather than a plug for a new film would admit that. e:derp. Read 'aren't as 'are'. We're on the same page here. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Aug 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
On one hand it's nice because it's proof that the tide is actually turning if CNN is going to bat for legalization, but it's a bit frustrating because yes, anyone with access to Google and an hour to kill can find out that shockingly enough the DEA's line on marijuana isn't quite the whole truth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Kid Gloves posted:On one hand it's nice because it's proof that the tide is actually turning if CNN is going to bat for legalization, but it's a bit frustrating because yes, anyone with access to Google and an hour to kill can find out that shockingly enough the DEA's line on marijuana isn't quite the whole truth. Between this and the little girl who stopped having as many huge seizures due to weed extract, CNN seems to be really gunning for the "marajuana isn't the devil after all!" angle. Well, I guess its about time, silver linings and all that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:e:derp. Read 'aren't as 'are'. We're on the same page here. Perhaps if you didn't smoke so much weed 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Heh. If only. Sadly, current circumstances don't permit me to indulge.
eviltastic fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Aug 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
So Holder is turning over a new leaf, though at this point I don't trust anything he says. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/12/211291336/timely-idea-holder-to-pitch-changes-to-drug-enforcement
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
Why aren't people like Holder held more liable for the damage the policies they enforce cause? Honestly introducing accountability from the top to the bottom would do a lot to stem the tide of injustices in the US Legal system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
No one who is in power will EVER open up the possibility of civil or criminal charges on an elected of appointed position who acts outside the scope of law during the commission of their tenure, not even that crooked rear end judge who was selling kids to private jails. This is basic covering your own rear end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Why aren't people like Holder held more liable for the damage the policies they enforce cause? Honestly introducing accountability from the top to the bottom would do a lot to stem the tide of injustices in the US Legal system. Eric Holder would have lost his job years back if accountability was a thing. I'd like to see it in our police force first, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:So Holder is turning over a new leaf, though at this point I don't trust anything he says. What about all the non violent, low level drug offenders already in federal prison for ridiculous mandatory minimums? "We were wrong but also sorry, no takebacks?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Leopold Stotch posted:What about all the non violent, low level drug offenders already in federal prison for ridiculous mandatory minimums? "We were wrong but also sorry, no takebacks?" They knew it was against the law! They deserve it! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Leopold Stotch posted:What about all the non violent, low level drug offenders already in federal prison for ridiculous mandatory minimums? "We were wrong but also sorry, no takebacks?" Most of the time, new policies aren't retroactive but this is still enormously good news.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
Could Obama do a blanket pardon? "Everyone who has served over one year for marijuana possession, with no priors and no violent history, is hereby pardoned." Or does he have to list all individuals by name?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
There's no real effective difference, as if he CAN'T do the former, all he'd have to do is have an intern do a search on everyone with those conditions. The problem is he WON'T do this, although I have no idea why. As a sop to the right? No idea. It makes no sense to me why he hasn't pushed for descheduling or rescheduling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
Because Republicans wouldn't like him if he did that.
OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Aug 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 20:10
|
|