Phi for All

That would be decided by the market. Depending on how legal it became, we are talking about a weed that anyone can grow, virtually anywhere. How much does homemade wine and beer cost? The hypocrisy angle is the weakest one to me, and the one that has the least chance of changing opinions. Hypocrites don't see their actions as being hypocritical, and alcohol-only imbibers usually see everything else as only "drugs". Is this a sarcastic "right"? Because growing non-THC hemp to save trees from being paper, and to cut the amount of pesticides used to grow weaker, more costly cotton fibers, and to produce hemp oil as an internal combustion fuel, has always been one of the strongest arguments to me for legalization. Right now, a lot of markets are maintaining higher profits unfairly because they aren't being challenged by this currently illegal competitor. And why is non-THC hemp illegal? All the arguments about it's being mistaken have been debunked. Many people who would benefit from it's affects won't take it because of the stigma associated with it being illegal for everyone else. I agree. The list of cons for legalizing MJ are ridiculous. This is probably the best compromise. If making medical MJ available everywhere went hand in hand with removing it as a felony offense so we could get some otherwise decent folks out of jail, I WOULD STAND BEHIND THAT 100%. (funny, hit the caps lock by mistake but I'm going to leave it anyway)

There's nothing wrong with angry, unless it leads you into a personal attack. No more name calling, please. I made the comment, "pulling a gun in anything but a life-threatening situation is just begging for a life-threatening situation" as a clarification of Moontanman's point, "most aggressive assholes will hesitate to hassle someone they think can shoot them". I didn't want it to stand as a response to abskebabs query about being hassled by kids, since I place quite a distance between "hassled" and "severely threatened". I didn't mean to imply any wrecklessness with my comment. I purposely didn't quote Moontanman for this very reason. The statement I made was a general one, but apparently didn't come off as such.

I thread per question please, I removed the duplicate thread in Homework Help.

First, what is "pretty young"? 17? 13? 10? Second, what is a "pack of bin bags"? The references I found on line referred to some kind of shoulder tote like a purse, but I have no idea what a pack of them looks like, or why it would be a threatening projectile. Third, I like the idea of very loudly declaring that singling one person out for torment doesn't work when EVERYBODY is sick to death of punk juvenile, terrorist-like behavior. I'll bet you'd have several people at your side real quickly. And last, pulling a gun in anything but a life-threatening situation is just begging for a life-threatening situation.

Can this be confirmed? I would like to know the reason before I start complaining about it. Two irrational actions don't make a rational one.

Hypocrites, by definition, rarely see their actions as hypocritical. It's just not the angle to take for change, and I think this is what Obama is trying to teach us. Shouting across the aisle is no longer a viable option.

Great point. I've partaken in the past but don't now and you're right, the most pragmatic arguments come from the economic and criminal angle, rather than the "it's no worse than alcohol" proponents.

Come on, we don't need any "that's stupid" comments. I welcome opposition comments for what they are: a chance to hone your own arguments and see exactly what it is about MJ that people object to. I agree that Obama can't be the one to start this. It has to come from a logical, rational public who marginalize the "let's get high" angle and focus on the merits of economic competition in various markets, reducing crime, increasing revenue through taxation and reducing prison population by removing the least offensive inmates. One concern is that existing laws aren't sufficient to cover MJ use. How much could you smoke and still drive a car legally, and how would it be measured, like blood alcohol content is measured?

You'd have to pay the Phi for All the things you did before all could be forgotten.

Moderator's Note: Do NOT stray into a discussion about religion or religious beliefs. Those are pointless and are against the rules.

I didn't think you'd have the GutZ to come back here after what you did.

I now pronounce this thread closed. Too many people forever holding their piece. Someone kiss the bride.

Golly, the nude model/firefighter/stripper act is tough to follow. Operative word act. [skeptic mode auto]

Same reason you've never seen a certain model of car till someone points one out, then you start seeing them all over. We remember patterns. But you know what's weird? 11:11 11:11 11:11

I hate the fact that Obama just trivialized the comments of so many of his online supporters. I didn't read a whole lot of those comments, so I'm guessing they were less than coherent in many cases. What needs to happen is a focused, meaningful, incremental approach that doesn't paint the picture of a nation walking around high all the time, that cuts right to the heart of the matter: less black market crime, fewer families in jail for catching a buzz (or helping others catch one) and the economic bonus of reclassifying non-narcotic hemp. I can understand the political image pressure, but I think that can be overcome by an incremental approach. It's the political interest pressure that I'm really concerned Obama is bowing down to.

Perhaps something in your sandwich is either offensive to one of the senses librarians care most about too uber yummy and makes them jealous enough to banish you or there is something politically incorrect about peanut butter, sausage and bacon I suggest you try cucumber and cream cheese. This seems like a choice no librarian would find objectionable, especially if you offer them a bite.

I would go back to the librarians who know and love you and ask politely if there is someplace else you could park your neat self down for a bite and a read. Maybe someone recently got sacked and there's a spare office....

Why are these two things considered conflicting responses? One is about what the money is for and the other regarding where it came from. :confused:

What worries me most about this type of approach is one of the logical responses, that businesses subsidize tuition for certain candidates in return for internships and employment contracts. They sound like a good deal to an eager student who can't afford college but amount to nothing more than buying and selling lives.

I could actually see some companies welcoming a ceiling limit on executive pay. They might like to sit the exec down and say, "We've given you the maximum compensation the government will allow us to, congratulations, you have reached the top pay in the US. We'd like to give you more, but that would be illegal and we need our government contracts." Playing devil's advocate here, since this really goes against everything I believe about government and businesses.

Not being not born yet? If you remove both negatives, you'd have, "Is being dead the same as being born?" Or are you a reincarnationist? That would make being dead the same as not being born yet. But being dead the same as not being not born yet? I don't yet not have an opinion.

Calling someone a troll is not good discussion style. Without specific references, it just becomes a personal attack. As an example of this, where the thread started downhill, IMPO, was where padren made reference to a majority opinion, for which Scrappy requested some evidence. padren responded with supportive evidence, which he admitted fell short of majority. Scrappy's response took padren's post out of context (2 sentences later, padren admits 22% isn't majority but is maybe enough of a base to begin support of his statement, which clearly would be difficult to document for this forum) and then throws in a Strawman about padren's point not relating to the OP.My point is, when you see a fallacy, call it out. Don't let the Red Herrings, Strawmen and out of context arguments pile up until all you can do is call "Troll!". That's another logical fallacy, Two Wrongs Make a Right.

Look at it this way. Science explains or is working on an explanation for everything that occurs naturally. Religion covers supernatural occurrences. Many things that seem supernatural get debunked by science, which then makes them natural (like the flood myth, or parting the Red Sea, or that the Hebrew word "yom" can mean a 24 hour day or it can mean an indefinite period of time, like "back in King Herod's day"). Some things, like a god that won't compromise the faith of its followers by allowing itself to be observed, defy definition in scientific terms, so they remain supernatural until the parameters of their definition change. If the Abrahamic God decides to allow Himself to be observed, tested so experiments and predictions can be made and reproduced, then science will be able to reconcile Him with what we know to be natural. Perhaps, at that time, we'll find out that God is not all-powerful, but merely more powerful than we could previously imagine. I've always had trouble with the idea of a god who could create a universe and then defy the very physics it was founded upon with omnipotence.

The way to avoid having this thread on suicide watch is to leave the egos behind and discuss - in context - the merits of each other's positions.