• Jonathan

    There are no resident religious extremists on NewsReal. There is only YOU calling anyone a religious extremist who disagrees with your progressive views and opinions. There is only YOU claiming that anyone who evidences the slightest religious sentiments is a “fanatic.” Your pasted comments here regarding my comments on the previous thread are shrill fabricated lies.

  • swemson

    Here's the blog he's referring to folks… You decide.

    http://newsrealblog.com/2009/12/22/pro-drug-war

    “There is only YOU claiming that anyone who evidences the slightest dissenting sentiment is a “fanatic.” “

    That's an outright lie and you know it…

    Here's this idiot's latest comment there:

    “All I’ve ever asserted to you is that atheism inevitably leads to totalitarianism.”

    Here's a recent series I wrote for NewsRealBlog:

    http://newsrealblog.com/2009/11/01/lord-monckto

    And this putz has called me a Marxist over a hundred times.

    Go figure !

  • Jonathan

    What's the series link for Swemson? I didn't post a comment there. Or are you trying to appeal to your superstar status as a commentator on the blog site. Lends you some credibility, ey.

    Why don't you post a link to the place where I first implied that atheism and Marxism are linked, so that we can put the comment in context with no debate? Please do. I'd love to go back and review that moment. I'd also love for people to be able to read your postings on that one.

    But, any argument with you as been so unimportant and unstimulating overall, that I can't remember exactly where that post occurred.

  • Jonathan

    Why don't we look at this link, Swemson? This does a better job of exposing who the liar here is. This link starts with my opinion which Swemson conflates into the hyperbole about how I called him a Marxist. Of course, that label in and of itself does sound silly taken out of context — which he does.

    http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/23/comment-of-t

    This is the good one I was looking for. It puts the context into the “Marxist” debate and shows what it really is. It also shows you insulting numerous people, receiving reactions from them. It includes you little leftist posting about the intellectual deficiencies of religious people.

    Plus, it includes the comment from the moderator who called you down for commenting violations and noted the fact that you often step over the line on occasion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/guy.dewhitney Guy DeWhitney

    They are just pulling your chain, they know very well that there is a lot of space between a total ban and allowing anyone, anytime to light up.
    Tactics like these are used by peoplewithout an argument to toss back at you. So they pretend to find a flaw in yours that an idiot child can see is fallacious. I think it helps them sleep at night.

  • http://www.facebook.com/guy.dewhitney Guy DeWhitney

    Good lord, the fallacies that abound in your comment stun the mind without the need for pot.

    “1920's prohibition actually had a huge positive impact on our society in attaching a stigma to alcohol that has persisted and intensified in the past 1/2 century. In this our society has been a world-leader. “

    I find it hard to believe that anyone with even a slight clue about history could claim such a silly thing! EVERY single issue that the prohibition was supposed to cure or alleviate got WORSE, MUCH, MUCH worse, after it passed.

    It was supposed to curb under-aged drinking; instead it made drinking clandestine and EASIER and more attractive for youth.

    It was supposed to improve the public health; instead it ushered in an era of rot-gut booze, 200 proof grain spirits and wood alcohol, all of them leading to much pain, sickness and death.

    It was supposed to alleviate the corruption associated with the trade; instead it helped take the Mafia from a small-time operation to the nation-wide shadow government of a shadow society of drinkers that included what may have ended up being a majority of the adults in the country!!!.

    It was supposed to improve morality; instead it gave criminals money to pursue their perversions and a clandestine society to play their sick games in out of the sight of the law.

    But to you that was all okay dokey because you THINK that some kind of stigma was attached to drinking after prohibition? May I ask WHY you think that before the 1920’s there wasn’t a stigma attached to a regular drinker? I find it clear back to Shakespeare and earlier in the history I studied.

    “The point is made that criminalizing pot has an impact similar to Prohibition's effect on alcohol. It promotes the belief that pot is harmful to the chronic user's health. This contributes to a stigmatization and attaching a stigma is an important and beneficial goal for society generally.”

    It is what to whom? You have GOT to be kidding! Attaching a false stigma to ANYTHING in order to manipulate the public cannot be a good thing to anyone except a fascist control freak of a government! Have you not read your Orwell, Sir?

    “It is, of course, true that there are no 'casual users' of pot or other illegal drugs in prison today. That 'full prisons' argument is complete fiction. The actual criminal charges need to be measured and not the end result of a plea-bargain agreement.”

    What reality do YOU live in? In the one I inhabit there are many folks in jails and prisons who did nothing but get hassled by a hostile cop while carrying a bag of pot. I have spent time in court and poked into different courtrooms to see what actually goes on. I have SEEN a harmless old man given 2 months for simple possession. How do you think he fared in jail surrounded mostly by those real criminals you seek to punish? I have SEEN an assembly line of prisoners forced to declare guilty or not guilty in seconds, any attempt to do or say anything else resulted in their being sent back to jail to wait for another court date. I have SEEN a judge tell them that should they plead innocent to the possession charges they will be in jail for months before coming to a decisive trial.

    Most disturbing I have heard a D.A. dismiss the concept of likely innocence with the words “They jury will convict, let’s do it.” And no, that wasn’t a typo, he said “they”. This was in the South where, white or black many supposedly educated people seem to view English as a second language.

    “The criminal costs to society of criminalizing pot that we measure are very small. “

    In your opinion you mean? As far as it impacts your little circle of reality? Forgive me, but I was under the impression that a bedrock feature of our legal system was the ideal that it is far worse to imprison an innocent person than to allow a criminal to go free.

    Are you willing to be one of the innocent victims of the system in order to prove your dedication to Law and Order? If someone plants a kilo of weed in your trunk the next time you go to Mexico to load up on cheap tequila will you smile and go to prison willingly, knowing that the system is right and your coming introduction to the joys of emotional, physical and sexual abuse is for the best good of society?

    “Could pot be regulated such that it is dissociated from criminal activity – probably not because it will always be produced by small growers who will sell an unregulated and untaxed product. I think pot is different from tobacco in the profitability of the product to the small grower. “

    By that logic repealing prohibition should have totally failed to remove the criminal elements from the alcohol industry.

    It seems there is a flaw in that idea as well. Alcohol is even easier to produce on a small scale than pot! Marijuana takes light, which takes open air or power, both of which make the operation less than private. I can make killer booze and no one need know a thing until I roll out the barrel!

    “I do wonder why don't we have “boutique tobacco” cigarettes. We have 'boutique pot' growers but not small “boutique” tobacco farms. “

    Tobacco has a lot more intense cultivation and a MUCH more involved curing process. It lends itself better to the large operations as opposed to the “micro” model.

    “The question is interesting in that it tries to address the issue of small entrepreneurialship and pot. The point is that many pot growers, distributors, and retailers use pot as a cheap entry product for capital formation applied to other criminal activity.”

    Say what? Have you been reading old Dragnet scripts again? If you had a low risk enterprise that provided a nice income why would you want to move into a high risk field? Since the medical marijuana law pot dealers in Ca. that ONLY sell pot have little to worry about. But, let them start selling meth or something else, WHAM!
    Your theory needs some evidence beyond the anecdotal.

    “Pot might be better compared to Crystal Meth in that each is a favored product of 'boutique' (small) businessmen. Pot should be compared to both alcohol and crystal meth in their impacts on society as well as on individuals.”

    Why? Cooking meth is dangerous and requires conspicuous amounts of various ingredients. It also involves a horribly addictive drug that is toxic as hell. How many people sell their mother’s insulin kit to get pot? How many mothers let their baby starve to buy a joint? Seen a stoned dad screaming at his beaten child recently?

    Please enumerate these EQUAL impacts on society OR individuals. I seemed to have missed them.

  • armaros

    Sarah Palin stated: “I will not come in between a person and his doctor” in reference to medical marijuana.

    I think that in all common sense, pot is harmless. In fact more harmless than alcohol.
    Who s heard of a wife being beaten up by a stoner husband or kids being abused by a pot smoker.

    Of course it is not 100% harmless. It makes some people lazy and it surely isn't healthy when smoked regularly, as anything burning inhaled in one's lungs cannot be healthy.

    And the pot lobby is also being unreasonable when declaring that pot is the cure for all and the greatest medicine ever visited upon man. Silly.
    Pot can reduce pain and increase appetite. Features which do help many people who consume it for medical reasons.

    But imagine the electoral advantage a republican candidate could earn if endorsing the idea of de-criminalization. Especially if put into the health context.
    Palin seems to understand this and is clearly toying with the idea at present.
    Young voters are easy to get with the right message. And in all honesty who would be harmed if pot could be smoked by adults (not in public areas) in the country which prides itself on personal choice and liberty. Not to mention the resources freed to fight the real dope, meth and crack which do kill kids and destroy whole communities.

  • swemson

    Pot isn't even a narcotic…
    It's a mild hallucinogen.

  • swemson

    Blah blah blah, same old story, same stupid nonsense…

    Why are you cruising over here now ? Is it because you were literally laughed off the blog at NewsReal.. where 6 of your recent posts were hidden by the moderator because so many people gave you negative ratings.

    You pontificate about things you know noting about, you describe in detail what I think, what my motives (are there any?) are, and where my beliefs, or lack of same lead me. Everything you say is a fact, and everyone who doesn't agree with you is a Marxist, and you don't even have the brains to understand our Constitution…

    It even seems like your fellow bigots have abandoned you. Don't you have a life? Is this all you have you pathetic clown?

    Go hump someone else's leg for a change, you became boring a long time ago.

  • Jonathan

    Because I'm going to continue dogging you whenever you want to go around posting self-pity parties and bashing people of faith who don't agree with you.

    You've already admitted that you are willing to be a hypocrite if it furthers the cause. Should I show you the comment?

    Here you go with the Constitution thing again. Proving yet again that you don't really believe it's about opinion. You are right and everyone else is wrong, throughout history. Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Even the Supreme Court. Even the founding fathers. You don't have unlimited individual rights. You never have. Nor is there anything anywhere that says you do. Nor does God say you do – like you actually believe in God anyway.

  • Jonathan

    I'm not pulling anybody's chain.

    I implied nothing sarcastically about allowing anyone to light up anytime. What would be the point in that? Instead, I suggested the very reasonable issue of an airline pilot lighting up in his off duty time on a regular basis over the course of his career.

    The issue is that we are talking about limiting usage even with the legalization. And the legalization is about pot. What about other drugs?

  • bobreaze

    Ok ill bite normally just read comments. In your message you state that use by minors rose. Ill take this point as true because im at work and can't research. The main thing though is that marijuana was only decriminalized not regulated and distributed like alchol and tobacco. The reason this decriminalization does not work is because lack of regulation. In the last 19 year we have reduced teen smoking and drinking through strict regulation of the distribution of these goods. However with marijuana we gave the distribution to drug cartels and dealers which dont check IDs and they dont care who they sell to.

  • bobreaze

    “Imagine forcing everyone in our country to smoke pot till they got addicted. That would be Al Queda's wet dream — stoned homeland security. That works for terrorists that is for sure.

    I'm not suggesting that we are forcing pot on everyone but I am pointing towards the direction of where our society would go if you can buy it like a cigarette”

    You know what i imagine when i think of being able to buy cannabis like a cigarrete?

    I imagine a time when i wont have to go to a shady gehto deal with a shady dealer that may or may not have put some other drug on my cannabis. As for the addictiveness of pot i have stopped smoking it cold turky 3-4 times. I start using it again when i want to for recreational purposes sometimes its years in between uses other times months. Marijuana is addictive just like sex anything good is worth repeating.

    Legalization of pot wont force anyone to use it. Use will rise for a limited period but plane off and teen use can be regulated similar to alchol and tobacco. Which is more effective then how drug dealers regulate who they sell to which they dont. If you have a15 year old ask them how long would it take for them to get pot and how long for beer. Most of the time pot is the easier substance to get.

  • Jonathan

    I really don't care about the stats per se. There are all kinds of stats all over the place, and stats can be rigged or outright lies. The point is that the voters decided for themselves. They voted to legalize and they voted to un-legalize.

    That's the nice thing about America. We can argue, we can debate, we can do one thing, and then undo it. And that's what it's all about. Not about the power of the majority over the minority, or the power of the minority over the majority. It's about deciding by representational government.

  • bobreaze

    they never legalized they decriminalized the difference is in a legalized version the distribution would have been regulated. decriminalized means figure it out for yourself and btw they couldnt legally sell it so thats one of the problems with decriminalization.

  • Bellerophon

    Very well said. Thank you.

  • Jonathan

    Okay. Maybe the next time the voters vote, they'll legalize it. It's a states issue.

  • LucyQ

    Pot is unlike alcohol or tobacco and is like food. Because too many Americans have chosen to be food addicts and are obese as a result, should we ban food for all Americans? Of course not.

    Mary's on a slippery slope saying the conservative movement should be based on “Judeo-Christian principles” that becomes diluted into “Christian principals” a few sentences later, a common technique used by religious extremists.

    Swindle could have made a better case for the legalization of pot but didn't.

  • Jonathan

    Medical marijuana already exists. It's called Marinol, a prescription drug. It comes in the form of a pill and is also being studied by researchers for suitability via other delivery methods, such as an inhaler or patch. The active ingredient of Marinol is synthetic THC, which has been found to relieve the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients and to assist with loss of appetite with AIDS patients.

    Marinol has been studied and approved by the medical community and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nation's watchdog over unsafe and harmful food and drug products. There are no FDA-approved medications that are smoked.
    Morphine, for example, has proven to be a medically valuable drug, but the FDA does not endorse the smoking of opium or heroin. In a similar vein, the FDA has not approved smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes.