Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Too High to Fail? Why are some 'flowers' against the 1%'s laws?

Posted 2 years ago on July 17, 2012, 6:27 p.m. EST by jph (2652)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"For the 150 million plus people who think America should legalize cannabis, what should be done to make it happen?

From a political perspective, I would say call your congressperson and senators and tell them you are voting based on their support for getting cannabis out of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and letting states regulate the plant like alcohol (and also that you won't tolerate sneaky permitting of pharmaceutical derivatives, only the whole plant). How is it that 56% of American support regulating cannabis like alcohol (and 80% support medicinal cannabis) and yet virtually no U.S. Senators support it? They aren't hearing from Americans demanding that this trillion dollar, 40-year boondoggle end. In your personal life, speak openly about how serious and important an issue ending the Drug War is -- it's not some college stoner issue. It's crucial for America. And that will help finally dissipate the stigma that's still attached to cannabis after decades of misinformation until it's considered not just as safe as alcohol, but safer. Which is not to say one must absolutely advocate its use in all circumstances. Rather it's to say that responsible adult Americans who choose to use cannabis should have the same rights as those who choose to drink a glass of wine. Furthermore, that sigma erasing will help inject billions of tax dollars into the economy and return small American farmers to the land. It might even help us become energy independent."

from; Too High to Fail: Cannabis and the New Green Economic Revolution - exclusive interview with author Doug Fine

http://boingboing.net/2012/07/17/too-high-to-fail-cannabis-and.html#more-171700

81 Comments

81 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 2 years ago

The War ON Drugs has been a total disaster and has exacerbated a problem into a MUCH bigger problem. Drug addiction has always been a health problem and never will be a criminal problem, no matter who says it is. Treating it as a criminal problem has only harmed many times more people than the addiction would have.


Now, marijuana. This is the biggest symbol of this flawed war. It is actually one of the least harmful drugs known to man. Far less harmful than alcohol. Far far less. It should never have been made illegal. The longer we wait to legalize it, the more it shows our horrid ignorance as more people suffer needlessly. Government should NEVER be used to legislate MORALITY. NEVERRRRRRRR.

Good post. Many know the truth here, and yet the politicians talk as if they know. Old Senator John Sununu today talked of Obama smoking MJ as if it was lowly scumbag thing to do. Anyone care to know what other opinions this horse's ass has. I don't. I have no respect for those who disregard truth.

Come Together NOW

[+] -4 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

you get high often?

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

"responsible adult Americans who choose to use cannabis should have the same rights as those who choose to drink a glass of wine"

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Too High To Fail

LOL brilliant

[-] 0 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 2 years ago

Your Idea?

How's the EGO, Mister Brilliance?

You shoot, you score...........well, of course you do big boy!

EPIC FAIL

Come Together NOW, or ELSE Big BOY!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Le'go my EGGO

This video explains the crisis in eggo waffle format - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-Yq1I8gIA0

[-] 2 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 2 years ago

Ok, I will. Problem with that commercial is I somewhat remember it. Ouch! I need to go back to one of my regular hobbies, making time, so I slow the effect of time speeding up every year over year. Sometimes fantasy is a necessary escape from a world that is as confused as I am.

SO, we complete another circle. Good one Trevor, you got it right!

Come Together NOW

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Ten Years Ago Portugal Legalized All Drugs -- What Happened Next?

When the nation legalized all drugs within its borders, most critics predicted disaster. But a decade later, drug use has plunged dramatically.

See; http://www.alternet.org/drugs/151635/ten_years_ago_portugal_legalized_all_drugs_--_what_happened_next

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

well i'm all for legalizing it but on the flip side I don't want states or the fed regulating cannibis it wll cost more and have a lower THC content sometimes illegal is best

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Not as long as we can grow my own, a couple plants in the yard and you are set for the year,. we can home brew beer today, so this should be fine too.

We really do need to stop putting people in jail for growing flowers! I know we live in a fuckd up society as long as cannabis is outlawed,. it just makes zero logical sense.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

But alchohol which makes people go fuckin nuts is fine. This gov is so messed up.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Every club, bar, or house party I have been to where some one gets out of hand they are invariably drunk (or more drunk than stoned) yet alcohol is state sanctioned and widely available,. yet cannabis is criminalized and while still widely available, the forces of law can kick in your door and take you away at the end of a gun for growing flowers,. yes it is ludicrous, and is on my list of things that if not changed shows that our current social "system" is badly broken.

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

the only people that you know that drink alcohol are alcoholics?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

No, cant say I know any alcoholics,. but people when they drink too much can become rather aggressive and annoying, puke in your car, or crash theirs. When someone smokes too much they may giggle, talk too much, and perhaps fall asleep. Chronic alcoholics eventually die from liver damage, or other related health problems,. and if you drink too much in one go, you can die from alcohol poisoning (435,000 Alcohol related deaths a year). Cannabis is non-toxic i.e. you can not overdose on it,. and has no deaths associated with it. (Zero Cannabis related deaths a year). The point is there is no actual REASON for Cannabis to be illegal!

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

you actually believe that pot smokers ( while under the influence) dont drive cars? how naive.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So surprise surprise, your against legalizing pot also.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

You presume WAY too much.
I never said high folks don't drive, however being high does not impair most people the way alcohol does,. . making this way less of a problem.

Try smoking some cannabis perhaps you will lighten up some, and stop being such a stick-in-the-mud.

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

being high impairs a person. it impairs their reactions

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

oh, I see that is an impressive study you point to,. oh, wait,. you point to nothing. Seems you have an opinion, based on something that you are not telling us,. so this is useful how?

Anyway alcohol IS legal and we KNOW it is unwise to drive while drunk,. so what the hell is your point again?? How does this mythical high driver some how justify keeping cannabis a criminalized plant? Can you point to a case of a high driver causing an accident?

The point is,. Cannabis is less dangerous than; Alcohol, Tobacco, Caffeine, Sugar, most big-pharma products, and many other substances that are not currently under some insane criminalization by the state. Can you generate an argument as to why this should be so? If so, do tell,. otherwise just go play with the other trolls, in your cave, or under the bridge, or where ever you guys have your little mindless trust. thanks for playing.

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

the point is that pot gets you high, and being high impairs judgement, impairs reaction time.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

What does your 'theory of impairment' have to do with criminality?

The drug war is a wast of money; it runes the lives of many people for no good reasons,. you obviously have none, as you keep saying the same silly thing over and over, that is off topic, and adds nothing to the debate. Prescription drugs cause impairment, alcohol, and caffeine, cause impairment and these are legal to use, sell, and posses. Driving while impaired is still against the law,. so how does legal cannabis change this?

What reason do you have to justify the continued criminalization of cannabis?

[-] -1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

nothing would help the 1 percent more than to legalize marijuana, it makes you dumber and more docile. Me I dont care what a person does, if he smokes dope or has consentual sex with a minor, its no other mans business, much like wearing a seatbelt is no other mans business.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

though comparing have sex with a minor is a bad thing ill overlook that.

You are completely correct that it will be a ploy by the cigaret companies. But they see a market and will make money off of it. who it will help even more is the government they will tax it heavily and make it so they have to sell it. so by 1% you should mean the 1% of the government.

this guy is wrong with his facts anyways and has no data to support it so he doesn't want to face the fact that most people don't have an opinion on weed.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You're comparing pot smoking with sex with a minor.?

Thats ridiculous, unfair, and a bit suspect.

I think someone should be watching you very closely if you think it's ok to have sex with a minor.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

it is more important that a free man go about his business, especially when both are consenting, note the condition mentioned, this doesnt mean that a "predator" who forces himself on a minor should go unpunished, any more than one who forces himself on someone of "legal age" should be. Is that what your mind jumped conclusion to? I believe a child has rights too. If he or she desires to experiment with whomsover they want, again it is their business, and not ours. The watch over them mentality is the root of what is destroying our country. It leads to bigger government and more money we have to pay this most wasteful part of our society. I.E. Lets wait until someone actually comits a crime and then go after them. it ranks right up there with the New York woman who had her $39,000 cash taken from her and kept by our government because, "the drug sniffing dog scratched her briefcase!" Its been 4 years and though the woman committed no crime her money hasn't been returned.

I think "To catch a predator" is spiritually offensive, in that they should wait to see if the man forces himself on the girl. If he is just hanging out, who gives a rats ass? I mean as far as we know he could be waiting until she turns 18 to do anything. Besides in the 1860's the age of consent was 14, and Jesus' mom was only 16. Shall we arrest Harrison Ford, or Michael Douglas for marrying a woman 20-25 years younger also? Consenting was the key, did you have a brain fart?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Your insulting ME? 1860's???? You wanna go back 150 years? Jesus mom? Bronze age fairytales? 25 yr age difference with of age people is not the same as taking advantage of a child of 14. Disgusting, pathetic, thats what your defense of this behavior is.

14 year olds aren't mentally developed enough to deal with the complexities of a mature relationship. They will be taken advantage of. That is why we changed the age of consent.

Many little dicked, inferiority comlex, momma basement livin, perverts PREY on young girls so we must watch out for them. Minor children aren't old enough to consent. You wanna defend the cretins on "to catch a predator"?

You need real help. Sounds like you should be watched very closely. I don't think you understand right and wrong. defending predators should be enough to revoke your sorry ass freedom.

Please don't respond.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

I agree with you that a 14 year old isnt mentally developed enough for the complexities of a mature relationship, I dont agree that its our business to even discuss it on their behalf. Each person is here to live their own lives, not have other men but in and live it for them. That 14 year old will do fine with their own experiences. There is no need to change the topic as to WHY the age of consent was changed, I thought the topic was on individual freedom. If your so adament about having others decide for you, perhaps living in saudi arabia, and becoming a muslim is the land and lifestyle for you. Rest assured, if anyone wants to put their life on hold to "watch me closely" they can watch the bullets come thru the end of my gun.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21276) 2 years ago

Good grief! How on earth can you compare smoking pot and having sex with a minor? Nothing similar in any way.

[-] -1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

the similarity illudes people because they have had their consititutional rights taken from them little by little. The similarity is in their right to be free, what a man does is no other mans business. Its also biblical.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21276) 2 years ago

That would be 'allude,' but no, sorry, the similarity does not allude me, as the similarity does not exist. The dissimilarity alludes you.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

"it makes you dumber and more docile" really? Obviously you have no idea what you are spewing stupidity about,.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

it does make you forgetful, try smoking it every day and see for yourself. Ill even send you a year supply. LOL

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

I find I am just about as forgetful either way,. just way happier, more creative, and much more relaxed when I do smoke every day. If I had to choose, I would take pot over alcohol, however I enjoy both,. pot and beer daily (when possible, the prohibition and cash flow are the only real limiting factors) and the occasional tequila, bourbon, or scotch. Stress is what kills people and taking natural stress relievers just makes good sense.

Anyone who actually can send me some supply is highly encouraged! always willing to trade skills I program video games,. PM me!!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

no.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

i was just kidding, i dont do that stuff, but i know some people who do, more power to them, free men doing what they want.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Why do you believe that the 1% care one way or the other if you dope up?

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

because cannabis is a mind expanding plant,. because people who get high are less interested in working long hours for material gain,. because when we get in touch with nature we are harder to control with fear and lies,. . and so forth and so on.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3250) 2 years ago

You piqued my interest about how Obama saw through the fear and lies of entering the Iraq war. Was it the magic of green plants at work?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

You really think he is blazing up in the oval?

I am talking about a general trend, not an absolute rule. Cannabis IS illegal for some reason, do you think it is because it is less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, or sugar??

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26971) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well they could be against it but it sure is a kick in the balls for the junk food industry. Protect their market place - huh no that don't pan out either - as unless it was just the alcohol industry that was afraid it might hurt their sales.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3250) 2 years ago

I was thinking how he had decided to vote against the U.S. entering the Iraq war while he was a Senator from Illinois.

He was "blazing up" alright with tobacco but not necessarily with cannabis now in the oval. He is NOT stupid - he is a cool SMART dude after all.

Cannabis is illegal because it was stigmatized by its association with the counterculture. Both tobacco and cannabis are bad due to their ill health effects. Some alcohol is okay but there are abusers who ruin their healths and endanger others through driving so those who can kill others should definitely be LOCKED UP - our police is far too lenient with alcohol abusers who drive while intoxicated. Regulation of sugar is a bit too much for me. Cannabis should be similarly regulated as tobacco. Cell phone usage and texting while driving should be banned but I know that I will not have my way because of the lobbying of the phone companies. There were laws against wearing headphones while driving but those who make cell phone calls and text while driving were behaving much worse on the roads.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Cannabis is non-toxic and much safer than many legal substances,. Here are some yearly death rates;

Tobacco : 435,000 Alcohol : 85,000 Prescription Drugs : 32,000 Suicide: 30,622 Sexual Fetishes : 20,000 All illegal drug use (excluding marijuana) : 17,000 Aspirin : 7,600 Marijuana : 0

from; http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

Pot can be eaten in foods, or vaporized eliminating the negative smoke particles; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporizer_(cannabis)

[-] 2 points by grapes (3250) 2 years ago

I know that there are good usages for even some illegal substances. What truly counts is the Will behind the usages - are they being done to alleviate human sufferings or saving lives? I wish that our law enforcers understand enough about the shadowy zone between black and white where grace or discretion should reign because they may provide the best proper nuanced response.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

President "I inhaled frequently".... So the guys in power get to joke and brag about breaking laws, but we go to jail for it.

This country is such a mess.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3250) 2 years ago
  1. They did NOT get caught.
  2. It was hard to prove one had really "inhaled" or not but the intern's blue dress with a stain on it would be very hard to deny in the age of DNA identification.
  3. Laws are often made stricter than necessary because most people WILL push against them if given a chance so stricter laws provide more space for discretion. Basically, laws are made for "idiots" not for reasonable and moral people.
  4. Presidents can admit past transgressions but the admissions have no basis in a legal setting for prosecutions.
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

what if the transgression question the motives of the prosecutor ?

[-] 2 points by grapes (3250) 2 years ago

There are often material facts which are undeniable and the motives of the prosecutor can certainly be one of those.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

And whats your freaking point? That you love having hyprocrites make the rules for you?

[-] 2 points by grapes (3250) 2 years ago

Shall I say that our Presidents were more "mature" in some respects than our populace? Perhaps that is why they got to be Presidents. In their hearts they might have desired a wild-night-party with a gaggle of girl scouts smoking hallucinogens and doing "things" but they would either not do that or only admit the truth when it is nearly impossible to hide. People want to see a clean image so they get that by and large. Hypocrisy is generally a trait of the ones with power because they can, they did, and they will.

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

obama smart? ever listen to him when he's not reading from his teleprompters? he's an idiot.

[-] 2 points by grapes (3250) 2 years ago

There is a definite advantage to having been "free-range" rather than "caged." Obama is NO idiot because of his ability to defer reactions while patiently waiting for definitive data and analyses. This sometimes borders on being "stone-cold" rather than "cool" and backfires in the fast-churning cauldron of Washington politics. His style is vastly different from other "fast to pull the trigger" characters. Ability to talk or lack thereof due to the usage or non-usage of teleprompters has no relevance to one's smartness as you can easily ascertain by examining the media.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

that the government would try to claim otherwise is predictable and desperate

[-] 1 points by grapes (3250) 2 years ago

Remember that he had won the Nobel Prize for Peace and his limousine is called "The Beast" for good Biblical reasons.

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

he used two teleprompters to talk to grade school children. are 8 yr olds a challenge for him?

[-] 2 points by grapes (3250) 2 years ago

Yes, 8 years-old grade school children can be extremely challenging to talk to, even with teleprompters unless one had put on effective earplugs. They can be worse than the Washington news corp because they ask the darnedest questions and they show no logic that can compare with "Iran has no homosexuals - we execute them."

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

a president that cant speak extemporaneously to 8 yr olds is a dolt.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We get it. You hate Pres Obama. Give it a rest. Your excessive personal attacks on him are irrelevant because you are clearly a partisan republican.

You are disregarded. Dismissed, and dispatched.

Peace. Republican boy

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

my dislike for obama is based on his ideology.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please. You get more wrong than right. Salty!

You are irrelevant, because you are clearly anti Obama, partisan republican. You are not here to find solutions for the crises that face working/middle class Americans. you offer nothing positive, only negative.

You only contribute hateful, nasty, mean spirited, insults. No substance. Just republican talking points that advocate against your own class and support the conservative 1% plutocrats that prey on all of us.

You are here to tear down, to intimidate, you resort to the schoolyard bullying tactics of your candidate Romney.

Irrelevant, dismissed, dispatched.

Peace.

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

go back to your playpen.

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

you certainly have no substance , and you're useless.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I know you are, but what am I?

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

take a break and wipe the froth from your mouth, the drool from your chin(s).

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Lol. nothing of substance. useless and insulting.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3250) 2 years ago

Wow! Cannabis does sound like a panacea for many ills afflicting the U.S. It is no wonder that Obama had gained such an excellent expanded mind that led him to occupy the Presidency. His Ivy League education probably opened his eyes to the reality of cannabis on campuses. Former President Clinton, you might have been too uptight and holding your breath for too long. Is it time to trade in your "Don't ask. Don't tell." for a deep breath of reality having known what Yale and Oxford were like?

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

keep lying to yourself about that.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

about what now?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Well i suppose some of the 1% might spend time thinking about all that, but don't you think that the Gov is a bigger threat to your lifestyle than the wealthy?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Well, since the wealthy 0.1% control the gov. I do not see your distinction??

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I just don't find much evidence that the wealthy care about your lifestyle. They're just not interested.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

The 1% care a great deal about control. They fear the loss of their "freedom" to pillage the 99% in support their greed based accumulation of material wealth, and more importantly for them, control over those they exploit to achieve it.

High people are not easily controlled through the same mechanisms that they use and this is what they fear, people not interested in the materialism, and bogus fear system they now use to maintain their domination of the planet and her people.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I don't find much evidence that the 1% folks are so interested in being able to control dopers. On the other hand, think of how many Gov workers would lose their jobs if marijuana was suddenly legal.

I sat on a grand jury deciding whether to hand down indictments for about 25 to 30 cases a day, one day a week, for 12 weeks. Only about 5 % of the cases were not drug related. Most of them were as follows:

  • Under cover police stand within 1000 yards of a school and attract the dealers. (BTW, check any big city map. It is hard to find any landmass that is not within 1000 yards of a school building, which includes school admin buildings, maintenance yards, bus depots, etc. As you can imagine selling drugs near a school doubles or triples the sentence).

  • Perp tries to sell drugs to police.

  • After money and dope change hands the perp is arrested

  • There are photographs, recordings, video, and physical evidence presented for all of this.

  • Everyone was indicted. Everyone.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

the evidence is that more than half the population does not want it illegal and it still is,. . it is not about controlling just the folks that utilize Cannabis instead of alcohol, or some sht prescription dope,. it is about keeping society fcked up in general, so balance will not be restored. The 1% maintains these laws and profits by them, this should be the only 'proof' you need, just follow the money.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I followed the money, it led me to multitudes of Gov workers, hardly the 1%, but they get politicians elected.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Yes, many in law enforcement and the incarceration buisness (largely private for-profit 'free-market' business these days,. not gov. as you seem to like to point to) have a vested interest in continuing these socially counterproductive laws.

The point is, in a democracy as we are told we live, when more than half the people do not agree with a law, the 'representatives' of the people, should be changing the laws,. however the reality proves the democracy is a sham actually controlled by the rulers of this land the 1%.

Do you really think the working class in law enforcement, and the prison-industrial-complex, have more say than the rest of the working class?? It is the owners of this place that set the laws, and keeping some flowers illegal proves this.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Gov workers belong to powerful unions that definitely have more power than individual citizens in getting government officials elected (and other unfair advantages).

BTW, if more than half the people vote to enslave some minority (or take money away from some group they don't like) is that the democracy you want?

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

enslaving a minority=ending prohibition on flowers?!? Where do we enslave people in america, again? You are clearly a dipsht! 1 person 1 vote,. how do unions have any advantage??

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Can we live without the insults?

"The point is, in a democracy as we are told we live, when more than half the people do not agree with a law, the 'representatives' of the people, should be changing the laws"

Actually, the point is “the tyranny of the majority”. If the majority of the people in a democracy vote to enslave a minority (or take away their money, or their rights) and they pass a law to do so, that does not mean the law is just.

One example: the denial of admission to US universities based on race. Today Asians ( a pretty small minority) are routinely denied admission to US universities despite being more qualified than other applicants simply because of their race.

Unions (and other corporations ), as argued endlessly on this site, have recently received person-hood rights by the Supreme Court when it comes to political campaign contributions and advertising. That is why Unions have more political power than individual citizens.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

We could, if you woulds stop insulting the debate with baseless, off-topic, and decidedly asinine comments like "if more than half the people vote to enslave some minority" that is some of the stupidest sht I have heard all day. We are talking about ending the counterproductive prohibition and criminalization of a plant,. how you get to enslavement of some unnamed 'minority group' is beyond logic.

Majority Rule is Good; Tyranny of the Majority is Nonsense See; http://www.realdemocracy.com/majority.htm

Clearly you simply do not support the idea of democracy, and have some personal axe to grind against unions of organised labor, this tells me you are a dipshit. QED

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I do not support a democracy where the majority denies rights, or steals from a minority, any minority, no matter how righteous the majority may believe their cause to be.

Can't you find of examples in the US (and other democracies) today where this is happening ?