|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:From wikipedia: A household (of two) where each person makes between $10-$45 an hour is "middle class".
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
computer parts posted:A household (of two) where each person makes between $10-$45 an hour is "middle class". Yeah, I don't get what this low effort post means. Are you agreeing with Wikipedia? Are you disagreeing? Help me out here. \/\/\/ "Middle Class" is an economic term with a very real and important definition. computer parts was confused as to what it meant, so I posted wikipedias definition for him. He never asked me "my opinion" on anything, he asked for an actual definition. If he wants to critique wikipedia definitions that's fine, but I don't think this is the right thread. There is a "conspiracy theory" thread somewhere in D&D he might feel more comfortable in. GuyDudeBroMan fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Remember, internet discussion forum... Please share YOUR opinions, not cut/pastes off wikipedia. lol, well played
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Look I get it you guys. The argument here is that "ideological consistency has no place in formulating government policy. It is far more important to be able to smoke weed right now today than to have to worry about things like legal precedent, or being ideologically consistent" Elotana fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
If I were a mod when I made the initial belittling and dismissing response to gaydudebro, I would have probated him for a week and banned anyone who responded to him. C'est la vi! I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Elotana posted:That hasn't been my only argument at all. I've already given you the Con Law 101 lesson on how cannabis federalism is going to work and why it is or isn't distinguished from other issues you posed under current law under very basic, well-known 10th and 14th precedent. I haven't said a single thing about my personal ideology. Try reading instead of projecting. No one asked you for a con law 101 lesson. That is you butting into our discussion on how we think an ideal society should be set up. Why won't you tell us your personal opinion? Again, discussion board, not r/con_law_study_guide. Tell us your opinion so we may discuss it. Federal Government passes a law legalizing gay marriage. Colorado passes a law saying gay marriage is illegal. Forget what would happen right now today in the USA. Tell us what you think SHOULD happen in an ideal society. No need to patronize us and cut/paste poo poo from Wikipedia. Tell us YOUR opinion. \/\/\/ I guess I'm just having trouble seeing things from the eyes of a Ron Paul libertarian. Does calling Elizabeth Warren a conservative happen a lot in r/libertarianism? GuyDudeBroMan fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
I kinda giggled at the hilariously transparent attempts at blending into a conservative's distorted idea of a liberal hive-mind believes (let's ban private schools, Saint Elizabeth Warren, etc)GuyDudeBroMan posted:Federal Government passes a law legalizing gay marriage. Colorado passes a law saying gay marriage is illegal. Forget what would happen right now today in the USA. Tell us what you think SHOULD happen in an ideal society. No need to patronize us and cut/paste poo poo from Wikipedia. Tell us YOUR opinion. 
Elotana fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Elotana posted:
Holy cow, an opinion! Awesome! 1) Federal government creates law making X illegal. State passes law making X legal. 2) Federal government creates law making X legal. State passes law making X illegal. How would your version of the 14th amendment deal with these contradictions? (jeez I'm gonna have to ctrl c this question. I keep asking it an no one wants to answer) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Federal government creates law making X illegal. State passes law making X legal. How would your version of the 14th amendment deal with this contradiction? You aren't going to find many people here who would prefer a Constitution without at least equal protection, due process, and freedom of religion in the basic federal guarantees, so your slavery/gay marriage/creationism analogies are still pretty dumb from a "hey lets discuss our ideal society" perspective. Which you might notice is not the title of this thread. Elotana fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Holy cow, an opinion! Awesome! Because different laws affect different things and the idea that the Federal Government should be in control of ALL LAW or NO LAW is so loving absurd oh god I can't believe I'm even replying to your stupid troll posts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Federal Government passes a law legalizing gay marriage. Colorado passes a law saying gay marriage is illegal. Forget what would happen right now today in the USA. Tell us what you think SHOULD happen in an ideal society. No need to patronize us and cut/paste poo poo from Wikipedia. Tell us YOUR opinion. DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Also the
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Elotana posted:It's impossible to answer that question without knowing what X is. Federalism should be trumped, not by FEELS, but by equal protection, due process, and whatever else you want to incorporate into your own Bill of Rights. If X is, say, a Jim Crow law legalizing racial discrimination in hiring, then the state law is denying federal equal protection rights and should be nullified, by force if necessary. If X is, say, a ballot proposition legalizing the possession and sale of small amounts of cannabis, then the state law doesn't have any effect on federal rights and should stand, and in that case I basically agree with Printz where enforcement is concerned. Whoa, whoa, whoa. It's almost like your saying we have a body of existing law and judges to interpret whether federal or state law takes precedent?? And imagine if we have a democratic system to pass such laws in the first place. That poo poo would be crazy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan's hypo is especially obnoxious because it insists we consider things from first principles but then presupposes that everything would be functionally identical to the situation we find ourselves in, if we did so. As analysis it's useless because its completely ahistorical. As "pure theory" it's also useless because despite being ahistorical, it hews to its own history and ignores the broad spectrum of possibility. What a weird mistake to make.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
It's a very simple line of attack. He wants you to say that you either support Federalism and therefore support federal laws taking precedence over state laws, or he wants you to say you support "states' rights" and support state laws taking precedence over federal ones. If you support Federalism, then your position on state legalization of marijuana is irrational, and if you support "states' rights" then you're a racist who believes in slavery. He keeps asking the question because he won't accept the answer of "I don't care about adhering to a strict Federalism or states' rights platform, I only care about the results or policies produced." And that is what everyone is responding with in one way or another because they are rational human beings that can accept shades of grey, especially in politics. There, I have summarized and ended the derail. Now we can all ignore the troll and move on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:He keeps asking the question because he won't accept the answer of "I don't care about adhering to a strict Federalism or states' rights platform, I only care about the results or policies produced." And that is what everyone is responding with in one way or another because they are rational human beings that can accept shades of grey, especially in politics. He acknowledges it, he just turns it into this pile of poo poo: GuyDudeBroMan posted:Look I get it you guys. The argument here is that "ideological consistency has no place in formulating government policy. It is far more important to be able to smoke weed right now today than to have to worry about things like legal precedent, or being ideologically consistent"
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
I actually do care about federalism to some extent, but his understanding of it is quite literally infantile. He also seems to think I'm a Paulbot because I called him out on his "I'm totally a liberal just like you guys!" overacting, which would be valid if this was the year 2007 (in which case I would still be a mod of D&D and could HIT THE GOD drat PROBATION BUTTON)
Elotana fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Gaydudeman is completely unaware that our justice system is literally racist and thinks that adults smoking cannabis are a a much worse thing than blighting entire communities using the War on Drugs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
Actually he's probably loading a fat bowl before typing up his next response to you retards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:GuyDudeBroMan's hypo is especially obnoxious because it insists we consider things from first principles but then presupposes that everything would be functionally identical to the situation we find ourselves in, if we did so. As analysis it's useless because its completely ahistorical. As "pure theory" it's also useless because despite being ahistorical, it hews to its own history and ignores the broad spectrum of possibility. What a weird mistake to make. It's almost like he's just trolling and you guys keep falling for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It's almost like he's just trolling and you guys keep falling for it. Seriously, I thought this thread was going to be a happy place where I can live vicariously through Co and Washington goons. Did you all lose your loving ignore button?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:\/\/\/ I guess I'm just having trouble seeing things from the eyes of a Ron Paul libertarian. Does calling Elizabeth Warren a conservative happen a lot in r/libertarianism? The only thing that bothers me about your arguments is that you keep bringing up politicians that have nothing to do with legalization of pot in Washington or Colorado. Who cares what either of those politicians that shouldn't have any more say over popularly passed initiatives in states they have no reason to even be in. What politicians say has almost nothing to do and almost nothing in common with what the general population usually actually wants, which is pretty evident by legalization of pot passing in these two states and other initiatives moving forward fairly rapidly in others. If you chose to base your opinions and ideas solely on what some politicians tell you than it doesn't matter what those ideas or opinions are, they are wrong regardless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Reason posted:The only thing that bothers me about your arguments is that you keep bringing up politicians that have nothing to do with legalization of pot in Washington or Colorado. Who cares what either of those politicians that shouldn't have any more say over popularly passed initiatives in states they have no reason to even be in. He wants everyone to be an unflinching ideologue without capacity for context & nuance, of course he's fascinated with authority figures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Reason posted:The only thing that bothers me about your arguments is that you keep bringing up politicians that have nothing to do with legalization of pot in Washington or Colorado. Who cares what either of those politicians that shouldn't have any more say over popularly passed initiatives in states they have no reason to even be in. Mr. Nice! posted:It's almost like he's just trolling and you guys keep falling for it. It seems to be taken care of, now. Thanks evilweasel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
The $7 million in state redcard money will be earmarked for research in marijuana therapeutics. I am looking forward to writing one of those grants and it makes my head absolutely spin. I care about stupid rear end legislation that is based on nothing and marijuana legislation is the peak of that. I care about examining it using evidence and then seeing it changed based on that evidence. It looks like we are going to have a chance to look at many of the positive claims that have been made in a rigorous way an report the results WITH the support of industry. That's huge but its because Colorado understands that doing it right RIGHT NOW will end this stupid argument once and for all. This is an amazing time to be in Colorado.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Meanwhile, a small group of representatives are submitting a letter to the President asking for Holder to re-schedule or delist. http://blumenauer.house.gov/images/stories/2014/02-12-14%20Blumenauer%20Rescheduling%20Letter.pdf quote:Classifying marijuana as Schedule I at the federal level perpetuates an unjust and irrational system. Schedule I recognizes no medical use, disregarding both medical evidence and the laws of nearly half of the states that have legalized medical marijuana. A Schedule I or II classification also means that marijuana businesses in states where adult or medical use are legal cannot deduct business expenses from their txes or take tax credits due to Section 280E of the federal tax code. Apologies for any typos. I personally don't think anything will come of this, but I'm hopeful that more reps can throw their support behind re-scheduling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Wouldn't marijuana have to be de-scheduled entirely in order to legalize it for recreational use? I thought the scheduled drugs, except for Schedule 1, were prescription only.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
rockinricky posted:Wouldn't marijuana have to be de-scheduled entirely in order to legalize it for recreational use? I thought the scheduled drugs, except for Schedule 1, were prescription only. edit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/829 quote:No controlled substance in schedule V which is a drug may be distributed or dispensed other than for a medical purpose. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=246-887-030
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Schedule V is indeed not entirely prescription-only; some states make it such, which totally invalidates the point of Schedule V, but it's not required under federal law. That's why codeine cough syrup is available in some states with no prescription but not in others.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
rockinricky posted:Wouldn't marijuana have to be de-scheduled entirely in order to legalize it for recreational use? I thought the scheduled drugs, except for Schedule 1, were prescription only. I'm interpreting "delist" as de-schedule from the letter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Schedule V is indeed not entirely prescription-only; some states make it such, which totally invalidates the point of Schedule V, but it's not required under federal law. That's why codeine cough syrup is available in some states with no prescription but not in others. Arguably marijuana would belong in Schedule III or IV just based on its actual characteristics though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Is alcohol scheduled at all or is it handled seperately entirely? what about tobacco? I've often wondered this. Could cannabis simply be placed in the same category as caffeine, nicotine, or tobacco?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Is alcohol scheduled at all or is it handled seperately entirely? what about tobacco? I've often wondered this. Could cannabis simply be placed in the same category as caffeine, nicotine, or tobacco?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Arguably marijuana would belong in Schedule III or IV just based on its actual characteristics though. I disagree. There are still no recorded cases of death by marijuana overdose, which automatically makes it safer than every scheduled drug. Marijuana does not belong in the same category as cocaine(II), ketamine(III), valium(IV), opium(V), or any other chemical regulated by the controlled substance act, period.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:I disagree. There are still no recorded cases of death by marijuana overdose, which automatically makes it safer than every scheduled drug. How is ketamine higher than opium or Valium? Wtf.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:I disagree. There are still no recorded cases of death by marijuana overdose, which automatically makes it safer than every scheduled drug. Death is not the qualifier for being on the Controlled Substances Act. goodness posted:How is ketamine higher than opium or Valium? Wtf. It's a date rape drug.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's a date rape drug. Ha! What a load of poo poo. The 'date rape' label is used primarily as a method of justifying the prohibitions on the non-therapeutic use of these substances. Other labels that are used to scare the ignorant masses include: Hard drug Club drug Designer drug Synthetic drug KingEup fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Feb 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Death is not the qualifier for being on the Controlled Substances Act. Just like alcohol is a date rape drug. There are a lot more things that would be better to use AND easier to get if you were going to do that. It's more a club drug for raves or at higher doses for spiritual journeys/out of body experiences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
In other news, there's some buzz in the statehouse about legalization here in Illinois. We're so broke that it might be considered if medical goes well.quote:State Rep. Lou Lang (D-Skokie) said the state has to prove it can handle medical marijuana first after it was enacted last year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Death is not the qualifier for being on the Controlled Substances Act. You're right, it's based on their potential to lead to physical dependence. I don't believe the crankiness of a heavy marijuana-user who quits cold turkey counts as physical dependence; not like what happens when someone addicted to opiates like codeine or vicodin goes through withdrawal. The potential for physical dependence isn't even close. Compared to every other scheduled drug, marijuana is harmless. Marijuana has a slight risk for abuse, but probably not more than alcohol, which society is already fine with. Why shouldn't it be legalized and treated like another intoxicant for adults, why's it gotta be in a schedule?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
The qualifiers for being on the controlled substances act are basically cultural and historical more than anything. There's no rhyme or reason to it at all, just tradition. Addictive drugs ought to be controlled but legal and good treatment freely available to those who need it. Perhaps reroute money that goes to police attempts to eradicate the drugs into developing widespread education and addiction treament and research.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 10:49
|
|
