Dmtdust wrote:

http://drugwartreason.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-plans-intensified-pot-arrests.html

Done with these Bastards, so done with them.

So who are you going with now?

Save me a seat. Sigh.

Dmtdust wrote:

back to left leaning libertarian.

I'm there, dude. Demonrats our own worst nightmare. At the top of the ticket, watch poor Teddy throw out the first ball, and Barney Bank Fag, with Chris Dodd just next door. Pox on all their houses, and Toto, the replicunts, too. It's Jihad time.

choad wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

back to left leaning libertarian.

I'm there, dude. Demonrats our own worst nightmare. At the top of the ticket, watch poor Teddy throw out the first ball, and Barney Bank Fag, with Chris Dodd just next door. Pox on all their houses, and Toto, the replicunts, too. It's Jihad time.

Oh, my fucking God.  You guys are so fucking pathetic.  Yes, Barack Obama isn't everything you thought he would be.  Cry me a fucking river you fucking idiots.  Is ten weeks really long enough for you to forget how bad it can be?  Then I hope you all experience (if only temporarily) once again what things can be like.  Do you really want to bow to McCain rule? ***




*** for those of you who lean libertarian, you are bowing to whatever authoritarian power happens to be in charge.  Not only is the libertarian movement completely retarded for reasons I won't go into here, but the Libertarian party is just a way to say that you submit to whoever is in power.


P.S.  I love you all except Fnord who can die in a fire for all I care, but do you really think that libertarian is an out?

tojo2000 wrote:

Oh, my fucking God.  You guys are so fucking pathetic.  Yes, Barack Obama isn't everything you thought he would be.
[...]
*** for those of you who lean libertarian, you are bowing to whatever authoritarian power happens to be in charge.

I can't speak for anyone else but I am a party of one and just as he promised, Obama is Hillary in pants. Fuck'm all with a pointy stick.

We have to demand better.

Decadence wrote:

Where's your sense of humor?

I lost my sense of humor in the drug war.  They bought me a nice prosthetic, but it's not the same.

What Tojo said -- everything except maybe the P.S., depending on mood.  Fnord's reverse-psychological, reactionary-in-a-mirror racist rants leave me cold, but in the land of put-ons, he may be wearing a crown, so I remain agnostic.

If you describe yourself as "libertarian" meaning on a general philosophical level, I have no problem (not that it actually works outside of a small group setting).  I might ask you to consider whether the environment might just suffer a little if libertarianism were the governing philosophy, but even so I can understand the temptation.  In economics, libertarianism simply blesses capitalism and says "have at it."  Recent events in our own economy make it pretty clear that the invisible hand can pick your pocket at least as well as the government.

To flip out over the drug issue and decide to vote a Libertarian Party ticket because of it would be to ignore every other issue out there.  It would be pissing into the wind at best.

Fled Said: "To flip out over the drug issue and decide to vote a Libertarian Party ticket because of it would be to ignore every other issue out there.  It would be pissing into the wind at best."

So I am pissing in the wind.  Yes, the dems might accomplish something, but this admin has been back pedaling on withdrawal from Iraq, and sinking us in that Tar Baby of a country Awfuckistan that is going to resemble Vietnam fairly quickly. 

Yes, I am kind of a one issue guy at times.  Drugs, there I said it.

orangeplus wrote:

My. Those certainly are big boobs.

Well that didn't take long.  I'm not surprised that Obama would turn against those who brought him here.  After all, that's what politicians do.  I am a bit taken aback by the hardened cynics on this board who bought in to the notion that he would be different.

ah297900 wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Well that didn't take long.  I'm not surprised that Obama would turn against those who brought him here.  After all, that's what politicians do.  I am a bit taken aback by the hardened cynics on this board who bought in to the notion that he would be different.

Did anybody here really believe he was going to legalize drugs? Am I the only one here who thinks that, with the exception of pot, drugs shouldn't be legal? If he tried to legalize drugs, he would be stonewalled on everything else he tried to do--nothing else gets done, everything grinds to a halt. You have to pick your battles--between universal health care and ease in getting a joint, I'm for the former.

By the way, the people that would stonewall him are in fact representing the interests of their constituents.

If you read some of the comments, you would certainly conclude that there was an expectation the Anointed One would at least legalize weed.  I had thought the hardcores here would have been immune to Obama worship or belief in just about any campaign promise by any pol for that matter.

If you're really interested, here is a pretty good rundown of Obama's broken campaign promises.  Not bad for 2 1/2 month's work.

ah297900 wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Well that didn't take long.  I'm not surprised that Obama would turn against those who brought him here.  After all, that's what politicians do.  I am a bit taken aback by the hardened cynics on this board who bought in to the notion that he would be different.

Did anybody here really believe he was going to legalize drugs? Am I the only one here who thinks that, with the exception of pot, drugs shouldn't be legal? If he tried to legalize drugs, he would be stonewalled on everything else he tried to do--nothing else gets done, everything grinds to a halt. You have to pick your battles--between universal health care and ease in getting a joint, I'm for the former.

By the way, the people that would stonewall him are in fact representing the interests of their constituents.

And Ah, I have to ask, what has been accomplished in the last century with the il-legalization of substances?  The erosion of personal liberty, the intrusion of the state into our consciousness (even further than before), the debasement n of whole sectors of the populace, the funding of illegal wars by covert drug sales by intelligence (ha!) services of the said gov't., the squandering of countless lives behind bars for what is a matter of personal choice, and this list goes on.  Let's talk the billions of dollars spent on prisons, interdiction and please show me the positive of this "war" except to line the pockets of jailers, criminals in and against the gov't, the money launderers in banking and wall street. 

I am waiting. 
Thanks,
Yer Pal, Dusty.

Last edited by Dmtdust (2009-04-10 18:18:29)

This video does a good job of showing how both the Democrats and the Republicans are finally working together to run this country into the fucking ground...  Say what you will about how the Libertarians treat laissez-faire capitalism and the free market as the end all shining light, but for that very reason Libertarians would not allow this kind of shit to happen....  The U.S. is fucking BANKRUPT if you are bankrupt and all your credit cards are maxed out you don't fix your problems by spending more money...  Obama's stimulus package is just like Bush's stimulus package, the only real change is a different group of constituents are receiving the benefits.....

Dmtdust wrote:

And Ah, I have to ask, what has been accomplished in the last century with the il-legalization of substances?  The erosion of personal liberty, the intrusion of the state into our consciousness (even further than before), the debasement n of whole sectors of the populace, the funding of illegal wars by covert drug sales by intelligence (ha!) services of the said gov't., the squandering of countless lives behind bars for what is a matter of personal choice, and this list goes on.  Let's talk the billions of dollars spent on prisons, interdiction and please show me the positive of this "war" except to line the pockets of jailers, criminals in and against the gov't, the money launderers in banking and wall street. 

I am waiting. 
Thanks,
Yer Pal, Dusty.

Here's what I know: If crack or heroin were legal and available in stores, I would have broken down at some point in my early twenties and tried some. Using my experience with smoking as a model, I would be addicted to some kind of hard drug now, and so would many of my friends. Years of productivity would have been lost to crackheadedness and drug treatment programs. How many billions do you think that would have cost? None of this is to say that I think the war on drugs is going swimmingly or being fought like I want.

Oh, and I used to make that "erosion of personal liberty" argument when I smoked pot every day. I notice that it came up mostly when I had a hard time getting a bag of weed. When my dude was flush with dope, it didn't occur to me as much.

ah297900 wrote:

Here's what I know: If crack or heroin were legal and available in stores, I would have broken down at some point in my early twenties and tried some. Using my experience with smoking as a model, I would be addicted to some kind of hard drug now, and so would many of my friends. Years of productivity would have been lost to crackheadedness and drug treatment programs. How many billions do you think that would have cost? None of this is to say that I think the war on drugs is going swimmingly or being fought like I want.

Oh, and I used to make that "erosion of personal liberty" argument when I smoked pot every day. I notice that it came up mostly when I had a hard time getting a bag of weed. When my dude was flush with dope, it didn't occur to me as much.

Well, you can sell your "personal liberty" if you like.  I want to be treated as an adult, which means that my cognitive liberty is not infringed by any nanny state.

From personal experience, most users of heroin, crack, whatever do not become addicted; the number that become addicted to these drugs lower than the number of alcoholics to drinkers.

Don't get me started on psychedelics/entheogens, by their nature they are anti-addictive.  If you have ever done any of them you know that going again and again becomes a matter of will.

In countries where there is legalization, the numbers of users DROP.  A good example of this is the Netherlands, where the number of cannabis smokers is far lower than the surrounding countries.

Yer Pal,
Dusty

ah297900 wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

And Ah, I have to ask, what has been accomplished in the last century with the il-legalization of substances?  The erosion of personal liberty, the intrusion of the state into our consciousness (even further than before), the debasement n of whole sectors of the populace, the funding of illegal wars by covert drug sales by intelligence (ha!) services of the said gov't., the squandering of countless lives behind bars for what is a matter of personal choice, and this list goes on.  Let's talk the billions of dollars spent on prisons, interdiction and please show me the positive of this "war" except to line the pockets of jailers, criminals in and against the gov't, the money launderers in banking and wall street. 

I am waiting. 
Thanks,
Yer Pal, Dusty.

Here's what I know: If crack or heroin were legal and available in stores, I would have broken down at some point in my early twenties and tried some. Using my experience with smoking as a model, I would be addicted to some kind of hard drug now, and so would many of my friends. Years of productivity would have been lost to crackheadedness and drug treatment programs. How many billions do you think that would have cost? None of this is to say that I think the war on drugs is going swimmingly or being fought like I want.

Oh, and I used to make that "erosion of personal liberty" argument when I smoked pot every day. I notice that it came up mostly when I had a hard time getting a bag of weed. When my dude was flush with dope, it didn't occur to me as much.

Are you an alcoholic? Severely overweight? Seriously. Both those options are readily available for anyone who is within walking distance of a supermarket.

I think anyone who looks seriously at the issue-and I don't even use drugs, never have, not even weed-and not about to start now-sees that legalization, total legalization, is the only answer. Seriously. Tax the fuckers, regulate, provide addicts with a safe place to kill themselves and turn over their kids to the state.

Cities would be safer, the gang problem would be gone, and rehab would be cheap and easy to all.

Dirckman wrote:

I even think most drug users would be perfectly capable of raising their own children if all of the social and legal stigma were to be taken away.

What, are you already ON crack? Addicts are mostly patent narcissists (well, they share many features with the personality disorder, but addiction is its own set of issues, psychologically). They care for nothing but themselves, scoring, getting a fix, staying high. We're not just talking about the chippies who do smack on the weekends, but full-fledged addicts. Their own hygiene goes to hell, things don't get done around the house, and the last thing they should be doing is raising children in an environment corrupted by drug abuse.

It's not social or legal stigma that keeps them from raising their own kids properly. As a big advocate of "personal responsibility," I would have expected you to appreciate this a good deal more. Regardless of what I may think about legalization, or an implausible change in social mores, addicts are at the bottom of their existence, by their own making. It's why most courts and child protective services would rather put the kids of addicts into complete strangers' homes rather than keep them in an environment of decay and dissolution.

When a person is having a moral conundrum whether to buy more meth, or baby formula, that's the very instant their possession of a child should end. Some addicts can be reformed/rehabbed, and eventually reunited with their families, but it sometimes takes months--if not years--to get and stay clean, during which they are missing primary developmental markers in their own offsprings' existence just because they were too selfish about their own conditions to notice much of anything else happening around them.

Fled wrote:

I need a recipe for a good Sazerac cocktail.  I've googled it and found a couple, but thought our absinthe drinkers might have their own.

Can anyone help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sazerac
Cut back on the Rye, increase the Absinthe.

D

Dmtdust wrote:

Fled wrote:

I need a recipe for a good Sazerac cocktail.  I've googled it and found a couple, but thought our absinthe drinkers might have their own.

Can anyone help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sazerac
Cut back on the Rye, increase the Absinthe.

D

Thanks Dusty.  I'm going to have to search around for absinthe.  Got a favorite variety that might be available on the right coast?

Thanks.  I have not found a source nearby yet.  Have you tried Pacific Distillery "Pacifique" Absinthe Verte Superieur?

Dmtdust wrote:

No, but I have been curious.  I have mentioned before that I have been drinking Absinthe for over 30 years, off and on.  I am always amazed at the variety out there.  You could take a couple of years, and work your way across Europe and still not drink them all.

Wait, now I want to go back and try!

Curious as to all the hype around absinthe I took it upon myself to purchase a bottle of Kubler.  The stuff wasn't half bad except its flavoring doesn't lend itself to volume drinking.  The first three or four drinks are quite good, but after that the anise flavoring is a bit much for me.

phreddy wrote:

Well that didn't take long.  I'm not surprised that Obama would turn against those who brought him here.  After all, that's what politicians do.  I am a bit taken aback by the hardened cynics on this board who bought in to the notion that he would be different.

No, wait, you forget, he's a deadhead!!!

I'm sorry, but if drugs were legal, I believe they would be HARDER to get than they are now.

From what I've seen, today's teens drink a whole lot less than we did when I was a teenager (and my 16-y-o cousin would get served because she looked 18, even though 21 was the legal drinking age).

Now, you have to look 40 to not get carded. Same would be the case with drugs.

Teens, today, skip right past drinking and go straight for pharmies, then pot, then whatever else they can find. Again, they do this because of access. They steal the pharmies from grandma, then they find a pot dealer and start buying it. Then their pot dealer introduces them to someone who sells a bit of blow....

I would wager that it would be easier for an 16-y-o to get coke (at least in any city) or heroin than it would to get a 6-pack of beer, unless he had a willing person who would buy it for them.

Long gone are the days of the teen standing out in front of the liquor store and asking a drunk to buy them beer.

So the argument, "if drugs were legal I'd have more likely taken them as a teen" isn't logical, as it is harder to get legal alcohol than it is to get illegal drugs. That wasn't the case in the 80's but it is now that they cracked down on the liquor stores.