Show Us Your Papers

[mk 11]

(And it wasn't until very recently you even tried to qualify your absolute statements with elasticity - so, no, it isn't at all what you've been saying all along. Not by a long shot.)

let's have a reading contest.hey, funny aside. some of this reminds me of that hilarious racist eric clapton. good old 'slowhand', who has lived a life of insane luxury by ripping off almost every style of black music without contributing a single original musical idea ever, had this to say once about immigration in britain:"I used to be into dope, now I’m into racism. It’s much heavier, man. Fucking wogs, man. Fucking Saudis taking over London. Bastard wogs. Britain is becoming overcrowded and Enoch will stop it and send them all back. The black wogs and coons and Arabs and fucking Jamaicans and fucking (indecipherable) don’t belong here, we don’t want them here. This is England, this is a white country, we don’t want any black wogs and coons living here. We need to make clear to them they are not welcome. England is for white people, man. We are a white country. I don’t want fucking wogs living next to me with their standards. This is Great Britain, a white country, what is happening to us, for fuck's sake? We need to vote for Enoch Powell, he’s a great man, speaking truth. Vote for Enoch, he’s our man, he’s on our side, he’ll look after us. I want all of you here to vote for Enoch, support him, he’s on our side. Enoch for Prime Minister! Throw the wogs out! Keep Britain white!"that was in 1976. in 2004, when asked about the comment he stated that his "feeling about this has not changed".

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

let's have a reading contest.

Up to your usual tricks - come into an established debate toss out a random shot without any background nor support & then never clarify your positions?And yeah, Clapton is an idiot. I hate using Wikipedia as a source, but I am feeling lazy. Here is some background on his comments:

On 5 August 1976 Clapton provoked an uproar and lingering controversy when he spoke out against increasing immigration during a concert in Birmingham. Visibly intoxicated, Clapton voiced his support of controversial political candidate Enoch Powell and announced on stage that Britain was in danger of becoming a "black colony". Clapton was quoted telling the audience: "I think Enoch's right ... we should send them all back. Throw the wogs out! Keep Britain white!"[63] The latter phrase was at the time a British National Front slogan.[64] Clapton continued: "I used to be into dope, now I’m into racism. It’s much heavier, man. ****ing wogs, man. ****ing Saudis taking over London. Bastard wogs. Britain is becoming overcrowded and Enoch will stop it and send them all back. The black wogs and coons and Arabs and ****ing Jamaicans and ****ing (indecipherable) don’t belong here, we don’t want them here. This is England, this is a white country, we don’t want any black wogs and coons living here. We need to make clear to them they are not welcome. England is for white people, man. We are a white country. I don’t want ****ing wogs living next to me with their standards. This is Great Britain, a white country, what is happening to us, for ****'s sake? We need to vote for Enoch Powell, he’s a great man, speaking truth. Vote for Enoch, he’s our man, he’s on our side, he’ll look after us. I want all of you here to vote for Enoch, support him, he’s on our side. Enoch for Prime Minister! Throw the wogs out! Keep Britain white!"[65]This incident, along with some explicitly pro-fascism remarks made around the same time by David Bowie as well as uses of Nazi-related imagery by Sid Vicious and Siouxsie Sioux, were the main catalysts for the creation of Rock Against Racism, which occurred on 30 April 1978.[66]In response to his comments, rock photographer Red Saunders and others published an open letter in NME, Melody Maker, Sounds and the Socialist Worker. It read "Come on Eric... Own up. Half your music is black. You're rock music's biggest colonist". It also concluded, "P.S. Who shot the Sheriff, Eric? It sure as hell wasn't you!".[66]In an interview from October 1976 with Sounds magazine, Clapton remarked: "I thought it was quite funny actually. I don't know much about politics. I don't even know if it would be good or bad for him to get in. I don't even know who the Prime Minister is now. I just don't know what came over me that night. It must have been something that happened in the day but it came out in this garbled thing... I thought the whole thing was like Monty Python. There's this rock group playing on-stage and the singer starts talking about politics. It's so stupid. Those people who paid their money sittin' listening to this madman dribbling on and the band meanwhile getting fidgety thinking 'oh dear'."[67]In a 2004 interview with Uncut, Clapton referred to Powell as "outrageously brave", and stated that his "feeling about this has not changed", because the UK is still "... inviting people in as cheap labour and then putting them in ghettos." In 2004, Clapton told an interviewer for Scotland on Sunday, "There's no way I could be a racist. It would make no sense".[68] In his 2007 autobiography, Clapton called himself "deliberately oblivious to it all" and wrote, "I had never really understood or been directly affected by racial conflict... when I listened to music, I was disinterested in where the players came from or what colour their skin was. Interesting, then, that 10 years later, I would be labelled a racist... Since then, I have learnt to keep my opinions to myself. Of course, it might also have had something to do with the fact that Pattie had just been leered at by a member of the Saudi royal family."[69] In a December 2007 interview with Melvin Bragg on The South Bank Show, Clapton reiterated his support for Enoch Powell and again denied that Powell's views were "racist".

I'll admit I am a bit surprised because unlike many of his friends and contemporaries - particularly Jimmy Page & Led Zeppelin - Clapton has ALWAYS given credit and acknowledgment to his musical roots and influences. Much of early Led Zeppelin was a direct rip-off of Black Blues masters without appropriate credits

[Balloon guy 158]

We definitely need to treat these things differently. Some substances have a positive effect on people in general (cannabis, psilocybin, LSD), while others have a negative effect on people in general (methamphetamine, heroin). I'm not saying the bad ones should necessarily be legal, but the good ones absolutely should be. There is literally no rational basis for the law as it stands.

When I was in recovery, a new guy came in who had taken a few hits of acid too many. He basically was 'over there' 24/7At night we would catch him staring at people as they slept. He would put his face a couple inches away and try to project himself into their dreams.Later he tried to set the place on fire, when he got kicked out he went home and took a metal pipe to his mother, he is probably still in jail.But, yea, I know it's fun to drop acid and watch grass...

[Balloon guy 158]

So, if something is not working, we should keep doing it on the assumption that other actions would be worse even though there is only proof that one option sucks. That's just a ridiculously indefensible position. We cannot claim something is not working unless we can prove that another option is better without being able to test it. Gosh, under that system we would have never changed anything we did ever. That would have been neat.

Actually, you are the one trying to use the argument that you know how things would be if it was done different, I am merely pointing out to you that this is your line of reasoning. The fact that you are trying to turn it on me shows that even you think this line of reasoning is foolish.Thank you for your support.

I dont share Henry's view that we should make all drugs legal all at once. We should start with pot and when it goes incredibly well we can move from there. (Henry is not a democrat.) I know that you personally oppose the legalization of pot which I think is ridiculous. So it is fair to just focus on the one drug. So, again is pot bad? And if not, why the hell is it illegal again? Because the prohibition of it is going so well? Oh yeah, I forgot, if we had gone another way things might have been worse. Great reason to keep doing something that does not work.

See now if you want to argue that pot should be legal then we can have a debate. But while pot is lumped in with crack, I have no respect for your side's position.Here is my reasoning why pot should be illegal:People who smoke pot are pot heads. Pot heads are usually dirty hippy freaks. As a rule they don't vote, and when they do, they almost always vote democrat.So the obvious connection between having your thought processes corrupted by a drug that makes you lethargic and prone to thinking Dane cook is funny also makes you prone to vote democrat shows us that pot users are bad for this democracy and this country's economic health.You sir have the floor.

[Balloon guy 158]

As more people enter the country, the increased demand for all the different resources those people consume will create additional jobs. It's not an instant phenomenon, but we would have absurd unemployment numbers today if population growth didn't trigger a corresponding increase in the number of jobs.

So more people equals more prosperity?What about city services? More people equals the need for more fire stations and police. More people also equals more wear and tear on roads. These all equal a drain on prosperity.I can go on to show how smart I am, but I can't think of any more things right now.

[Balloon guy 158]

No, I'm stating, quite flatly, that it is impossible. Not "hard to do", impossible. Not once in history has prohibition worked, ever, even a little, and after billions of dollars and decades of trying, the insane drug war has not made a dent, not the slightest reduction, in drug use, and in many ways, has made the problem worse. Unless you have some reason to believe that that will suddenly change, you are supporting insanity.

Again, just because something is hard is not a reasonable excuse to give up.If people want to smoke crack, and it kills them and their communities, we should try to stop it. Not throw up our hands and say: "But they want to and it's hard to stop them"You need to drop this line of reasoning and come up with a reason why allowing people to have unfettered access to all forms of drugs is a positive for society, or else you are merely showing that your bias to the libertarian line makes you unable to explain your reasoning here.

[strategy 4]

Again, just because something is hard is not a reasonable excuse to give up.If people want to smoke crack, and it kills them and their communities, we should try to stop it. Not throw up our hands and say: "But they want to and it's hard to stop them"You need to drop this line of reasoning and come up with a reason why allowing people to have unfettered access to all forms of drugs is a positive for society, or else you are merely showing that your bias to the libertarian line makes you unable to explain your reasoning here.

[mk 11]

You need to drop this line of reasoning and come up with a reason why allowing people to have unfettered access to all forms of drugs is a positive for society, or else you are merely showing that your bias to the libertarian line makes you unable to explain your reasoning here.

people. will. do. drugs. anyway.making them illegal empowers those willing to break the law to supply the demand that has been STATISTICALLY SHOWN over and over and over and over again to continue unabated by laws.it isn't a line of reasoning; it's holding your eyelids open while reading data, and then processing said data using common sense to arrive at the conclusion that the 'war on drugs' is costly, wholly ineffective and enormously empowering to druglords.

[Balloon guy 158]

people. will. do. drugs. anyway.

Again, a poor reasons to justify anything.The fact that you guys want to make this the first line of reasoning shows that your side is weak in logic.

making them illegal empowers those willing to break the law to supply the demand that has been STATISTICALLY SHOWN over and over and over and over again to continue unabated by laws.

They have statistics that show that when something is illegal that people will break the laws to do that? Wow, this must have been an exhaustive study. And it's completely unabated by the laws? No one ever considers that the act they are thinking of doing, like maybe selling crack to kids in school, is against the law so maybe they shouldn't do it? Well then I can see how the action of not having a law will cause them to reconsider their actions.

it isn't a line of reasoning; it's holding your eyelids open while reading data, and then processing said data using common sense to arrive at the conclusion that the 'war on drugs' is costly, wholly ineffective and enormously empowering to druglords.

In order to argue that it is wholly ineffective you must be able to prove that not participating in the drug war would mean that the same amount of drugs would have been used. (Because I know you went to college and all, but wholly ineffective means it does absolutely nothing.)You really want to try to argue that if we make cocaine legal and sell it in pharmacies to anyone over 14 years of age that the number of people using it will. stay. the. same.?You want to try to argue that our putting cops onto the job of arresting people who break our laws has done nothing to affect the amount of times that law is broken?Again then, if you guys want to take this license with reality than I will also.If the war on drugs had not been done as it has in the past, the entire state of Florida would have burned up because of tweekers who would have started fires to protest the increase in taxes being placed on crack and heroin at WalGreens. So you people who live in Florida should go out and hug a cop, yea I said it, Hug a Cop!

[Balloon guy 158]

Cocaine addiction rates in the US are *exactly* the same now as they were when cocaine was available over the counter. Google on "Law Enforcement Against Prohibition LEAP".

Really?We had an comprehensive study into the number of people addicted to coke back in 1913?I would like to see that report. I mean talk about your insight. Giving us a compressive benchmark to compare later addiction rates to. What luck that they used their horse drawn carriages to go door to door and get accurate numbers on who was using cocaine ( a legal drug at the time ) I wonder who funded that study...must have been the temperance board.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

We had an comprehensive study into the number of people addicted to coke back in 1913?

It was part of the census.(I don't know, I just wanted to jump onto this merry-go-round of a thread.)

[El Guapo 8]

I quoted a few things, but they got lost.1. Henry you idealize the legalization of drugs that people would sit inside of their house and do nothing after they get high. Right now in CA with Pot about to be legalized, they also want to make it legal to smoke it on the street like it is a cigarette. How does that not affect the people surrounding that person?Also, with Alcohol when people are operating machinery while drunk there is a way to prove the level of their intoxication with either breath, urine or blood. With hard drugs, the only way to see if they are high is a blood test. Also, pot stays in the system for a very long period of time and can affect people's ability to drive and operate machinery. Once alcohol is out of your system, you are no longer impaired.2. Yes, Rob is awful at planning things. Which is ironic since he he basically plans events.

In order to argue that it is wholly ineffective you must be able to prove that not participating in the drug war would mean that the same amount of drugs would have been used. (Because I know you went to college and all, but wholly ineffective means it does absolutely nothing.)You really want to try to argue that if we make cocaine legal and sell it in pharmacies to anyone over 14 years of age that the number of people using it will. stay. the. same.?You want to try to argue that our putting cops onto the job of arresting people who break our laws has done nothing to affect the amount of times that law is broken?Again then, if you guys want to take this license with reality than I will also.If the war on drugs had not been done as it has in the past, the entire state of Florida would have burned up because of tweekers who would have started fires to protest the increase in taxes being placed on crack and heroin at WalGreens. So you people who live in Florida should go out and hug a cop, yea I said it, Hug a Cop!

This is a good post.

[Balloon guy 158]

This is a good post.

You just like the Fletch reference

[El Guapo 8]

You just like the Fletch reference

I just like Shriners.

[Balloon guy 158]

It was part of the census.(I don't know, I just wanted to jump onto this merry-go-round of a thread.)

I think I remember seeing that old form:1. How many people live in this dwelling that have not died of consumption this year?2. How often do you bath per decade?3. Are you unable to stop using cocaine?4. What do you think about this new fangled thing called electricity?5. Should we base our economic system on the gold standard, or resolve to free up our economic might by allowing banks to have unfettered access to large sums of money?6. What's up with Brittney Spear's great grandmother?

[vbnautilus 48]

When I was in recovery, a new guy came in who had taken a few hits of acid too many. He basically was 'over there' 24/7At night we would catch him staring at people as they slept. He would put his face a couple inches away and try to project himself into their dreams.Later he tried to set the place on fire, when he got kicked out he went home and took a metal pipe to his mother, he is probably still in jail.But, yea, I know it's fun to drop acid and watch grass...

He clearly didn't take enough acid to cure his sociopathy. I didn't say it was a panacea.

1. Henry you idealize the legalization of drugs that people would sit inside of their house and do nothing after they get high. Right now in CA with Pot about to be legalized, they also want to make it legal to smoke it on the street like it is a cigarette. How does that not affect the people surrounding that person?

Actually the new law does not permit this.

[Balloon guy 158]

He clearly didn't take enough acid to cure his sociopathy. I didn't say it was a panacea.

Pretty sure this debate has allowed the inclusions of irrelevant pulled out the air references that would normally not be allwoed to be used in any normal debate. I was just exercising my option here.

Actually the new law does not permit this.

But of course we will make a law that prevents the cops from enforcing any 'harassment' on these poor pot heads who just want to smoke their pot on the street and not get a job.Then some future gov will pass some law that tells cops that they can check for pot use IF they arrest someone for another crime.This will cause a large protest in Humbold county, (the new seat of power in the state ) where dozens of people will show up. The rest will have forgotten to show up because they were stoned.

[El Guapo 8]

Actually the new law does not permit this.

From what I have seen it's ambiguous at best and they want to make it legal to smoke in public.

[loogie 115]

Right now in CA with Pot about to be legalized, they also want to make it legal to smoke it on the street like it is a cigarette. How does that not affect the people surrounding that person?

How does it affect them?

[Balloon guy 158]

How does it affect them?

Reminds me when I was a union heavy equipment operator. I was on an 824 rubber tire dozer and was running haul roads on this big job in Mission Viejo.I was running next to a guy who was on a D-10 Cat, which is a big cat. His job was pushing the 651 in the cut. I looked over at him and noticed this guy was firing up a pipe as he backed up.My first thought was: "That's can't be good."

[Balloon guy 158]

Reminds me when I was a union heavy equipment operator. I was on an 824 rubber tire dozer and was running haul roads on this big job in Mission Viejo.I was running next to a guy who was on a D-10 Cat, which is a big cat. His job was pushing the 651 in the cut. I looked over at him and noticed this guy was firing up a pipe as he backed up.My first thought was: "That's can't be good."

Although nothing ever happened on that job. He never ran anyone over. although on another job our foreman got pissed off at a union truck driver and he ran over his truck with a D-9. I mean just flat out ran over the semitruck with a dozer like it wasn't even here.They took him to jail. I don't think pot was involved.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

It was part of the census.(I don't know, I just wanted to jump onto this merry-go-round of a thread.)

Actually one of my favorite responses in the whole thread.

[vbnautilus 48]

From what I have seen it's ambiguous at best and they want to make it legal to smoke in public.

Here's the text of the ballot initiative:

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010Title and Summary:Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.

and later

(b) “Personal consumption” shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301.© “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:(i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301;(ii) consumption in public or in a public place;(iii) consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator;(iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.

http://www.taxcannabis2010.org/index.php/pages/initiative/

[Balloon guy 158]

Here's the text of the ballot initiative: and laterhttp://www.taxcannabis2010.org/index.php/pages/initiative/

So you can go to war and die for your country, but you can't smoke a joint.Yea, their side is all about freedoms and fairness...

[CaneBrain 95]

Actually, you are the one trying to use the argument that you know how things would be if it was done different, I am merely pointing out to you that this is your line of reasoning. The fact that you are trying to turn it on me shows that even you think this line of reasoning is foolish.Thank you for your support.See now if you want to argue that pot should be legal then we can have a debate. But while pot is lumped in with crack, I have no respect for your side's position.Here is my reasoning why pot should be illegal:People who smoke pot are pot heads. Pot heads are usually dirty hippy freaks. As a rule they don't vote, and when they do, they almost always vote democrat.So the obvious connection between having your thought processes corrupted by a drug that makes you lethargic and prone to thinking Dane cook is funny also makes you prone to vote democrat shows us that pot users are bad for this democracy and this country's economic health.You sir have the floor.

No, you are the one who is arguing that we should keep doing something that is not working. Everything else is a sideshow.Your theories on the usage of pot are hilariously flawed because you are old. First of all, only drunk people think Dane Cook is funny not high people. Second, most of the pot users I know are productive members of society (lawyers, bankers, advertising execs, etc). It is a drug that is used by an incredibly wide swath of the populace. Lastly, none of the reasons you listed is anywhere near enough to continue to waste billions fighting a drug with less side effects than alcohol...that everyone can get in an hour if they really want it. But by legalizing it, we could profit from it and make a dent in the border violence and the general chaos of Mexico.You, sir, are wrong. And I think you know it.