This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Presented with no comment...
of course, correlation does not imply causation...
- advertisements -
Contact Information:
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Suggested Reading:
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer, our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure. Here's our Cookie Policy.
no comment
Can I go ahead and think Zero is an asshole but also think pot doesn't cause brain damage and that his decision not to send the Feds to CO and WA to bust sellers (he could) and his going out on a limb to say pot isn't so bad are the only good things (and the least hypocritical things) he's done so far? Thanks in advance.
Are you offering yourself as proof about the brain damage thing?
I'll just respect that one for being a good zinger.
Barack Obama is the 44th president of the United States and the first pothead president in American history.
Maybe, maybe not. Bill "didn't inhale?" And W didn't snort coke until his eyes bled? Granted, that doesn't make him a pothead but I'm pretty sure cokeheads are more dangerous than potheads. Either way, it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to think both did their share of hard partying.
The only difference from every other president is Mr. Obama continues smoking and "inhaling" it while he is an active president.
I don't care if he does (plenty of Presidents were big drinkers and/or addicted to pain meds, and this one is purely a figurehead anyway), but I doubt it.
I guess you also don't care about the doubling of our national debt. It took previous four presidents + six wars + Cold War + disasters as Katrina + 9/11 and 35 years to double the US debt. This pothead has already doubled the debt in just five years (and he still has three more years to borrow and spend).
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEBTN?cid=5
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEGDQ188S?cid=5
Well, he could post incessantly about "gold manipulation" like the wankers at King World News....yawn.
And the next President of whichever flavor will do the same. I fail to see the pot connection. Or do you think Greenspan, Bernanke and Yellen are big partakers? Oh, and Congress that actually controls the budget. Your colors are showing.
JFK had quite the time with amphetamines. Probably not as good a time as Philip K Dick, but then again he did get to do Ms Monroe.
Yes, it's all George Bush's fault!
not all but at least as much as most and more than many.
he gave obama ideas and political cover. the two of them plus clinton make george h.w. bush look like a statesman of stature.
No, Obama not enforcing drug laws is hyprocrytical too. He swore under oath to do his job... enforce the law. Anyone supporting him not enforcing drug laws supports lawlessness like the rest of the statist. I don't support criminalizing marijuana but the president does not have the authority to change and not enforce laws he doesn't like willy nilly. He is not the legislature. Period... If you have a strong argument against the constitutionality of federal drug laws itself you may have an argument, but that's it. And Obama would open a giant can of state's right's worms if he did that anyway, which he will never do. A dictator is a dictator whether we like what he does or not.
"Obama not enforcing drug laws is hyprocrytical too. He swore under oath to do his job... enforce the law."
Then it's about damned time he doesn't enforce one of the dumbest and most counterproductive laws against the common people. He, like Bush, doesn't enforce laws against his major campaign contributors like TBTF banks. Usually the Do'J's targets, because they're easy ones and don't offend major donors, just the little guy.
"I fail to see the pot connection."
Same here. I think Tyler just wanted to stir the pot...
+1 Hi Randy, I agree with you, this one is purely a figurehead. A figurehead for the NWO, just like Bush. But you are wrong about him only smoking weed though. I thought you would have read "Dreams From My Father"? Being that you voted and supported him a few years ago. He did also admit to doing a little blow, no heroin, something about not liking the dealer. Not that it makes a difference.
Our Presidents since Carter have been carefully vetted by TPTB and our intelligence community. The CIA didn't want any Prez interfering in THEIR world - Carter paid a heavy price for that. Despite Ronnie's anti-DC rhetoric, he was all too willing to 'play ball' and pardon anyone who got caught. Clinton.... Google 'Mena, Arkansas' - a center of Cpompany activity... Bush I - well of course - as with Bush II - though he was much more a figurehead... Obama - his maternal family seems to be hip deep in Company business - 'Manchurian Candidate' anyone? Odd how NOBODY got prosecuted for ANYTHING despite public disgust and outcry..... After Bush II the American peopel were PISSED. Couldnt have a real 'progerssive', someone willing to hold people accountable, getting elected. IMO Obama was a construct to take away votes that might have supported a Feingold or Kucinich - but Hillary (the expected candidate) dropped the ball and the 'safety valve got elected. Hence the scramble to deal with some 'holes' they never expected to see the light of day.
Ever hear the term "More pills than Carter"?
Edit-
"Couldnt have a real 'progerssive', someone willing to hold people accountable, getting elected."
Who would that real progressive be? Feinstein Kucinich? In your mind. What makes them progressives and not Obama.
Kucinich was the Ron Paul of the Democratic party, and that's why they redistricted his ass out of office.
Hate to break this to you, but Kucinich is another fraud. As I'm sure you know, Kucinich now works for the Fox News channel Let me know if you need a link?
not feinstein (notorious female warmonger and zionist from california). feingold. from wisconsin.
Obama, Feinstein and the Clintons are all dedicated progressives -- (I subconsciously almost added Mister New World Order himself, George Herbert Walker Bush to that list, but he probably thinks of himself as a democracy-spreader-by-any-means-even-if-it-kills-them neo-con). What they are is what they do. This is not a new thing. Big government militant law-and-order (lately you would say NWO) police-statists have proudly flaunted their progressivism for much more than a century -- leitmotif: "continuous Govt expansion good, all non-Govt-controlled entities and persons suspect and subject to sanction (in the negative sense)". Behavior-wise in a double-blind test, they are hard to distinguish from neo-cons: and they are equal in their Western chauvinistic fascism (just consider another one, the "far-seeing" murderous Madeleine Albright). Kucinich is an exception to the rule (at least when it comes to the military and police state). Give him credit for his consistent anti-war (anti-Bush/Cheney) stance -- he also spoke out against Obama's Libyan aggression but that's why his party dumped him. (Couldn't have a Democrat questioning the Democratic Party's War Chief -- they need the partisans to shut up.)
The Progressive Global Republik of the USA.
YOU'RE A TOWEL!
How spicy you want your chang sauce man?
ncdirtdigger,
No!
YOU'RE A TOWEL !!
Thanks for the laugh!
YOU'RE A TOWEL !!...
...And you smell like oranges.
His name was Tyler Durden.
His name was Tyler Durden.
His name was Tyler Durden.
... and he used to post more interesting stuff than crappy cartoons.
His name is Dyler Turden
ZH has the oddly reptilian habit of shedding its skin every six months, and trying to grow into a new one.
Last Summer's attempt was damn near fatal.
Wish I could see the rhyme or reason.
...and he approved this message.
His name was Robert Paulson.
.. and "Bob" had bitch tits!
While I do not care for Obama I also appreciate that he did not go into Syria.
I doubt we will ever learn whether it was ineptitude and being outflanked by Putin, a softness for Shia, lack of guts or whether he really has an anti-war, anti MIC opinion. All I can do is observe his actions and in some I approve.
Who can guess what Obamacare is really all about (I think it is to establish a post dollar , minimal service system) but it seems like ineptitude is part of it.
lvpersona
it was a military coup
look no further
TPTB have been pushing for all out war in the MidEast since Bush. Look at how many 'Iranian provocations' were reported. Hell they even tried a repise of Tonkin with 'speedboat attacks'. But the military is a bit fed up with being used and treated like cannon fodder and has resisted. Generals resigned - or were pushed out - under Bush - and under Obama. The neo-con hit list made up by Project for a New American Century is still getting checked off..... They got Libya (and a much increased presence in East Africa) though Syria has been harder to push and Iran is a shitsorm that any rational person (except the Israelis) know should be avoided. Some people are still concerned with how they'll be seen in the history books - though I suspect there won't be anyone left to read them if TPTB get their way.
Pretty screwed up world when US generals, Russia and China are more concerned with stopping WWIII than US politicians.
I think the Russian military told the Pentagon that "you don't want to go there" aka Syria. Putin had 8 ships there and China had at least one. I bet the Russian said "you do not want to see our newer supersonic anti ship missiles comrade."
Obama was ready to go and General Dempsey (head of Joint Cheifs) went to the White House on a Saturday to probably talk Obama out of it.
Did not go into Syria or Iran, yet.
The "Peace Conference" is designed to correct that.
Obama drew the line and Putin spit in his eye.
"While I do not care for Obama I also appreciate that he did not go into Syria."
lasvegaspersona
Not trying to be a smart alec here but read these and tell me if you still approve.
Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/11/syria-al-qaeda-conne...
Obama waives ban on arming terrorists to allow aid to Syrian oppositionhttp://washingtonexaminer.com/updated-obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrori...
MIT Report: Obama Used Bogus Intelligence to Push Syria Warhttp://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/17443-mit-repor...
vegas, You don't actually think Obama sets his own policy, do you? I didn't junk you, btw.
Don't you think he wanted to but couldn't?
Sure, bammy's an idealist- perfect candidate. Why am I thinking of Bill Hicks? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MRykTpw1RQ
WTF u been smokin?
I'll agree with ya' there LTER; it is the ONE thing that worthless fuck has gotten right in 5 years. What is it they say about broken clocks?
No, of course pot doesn't cause drain bamage.
Anything that affects you brain...affects your brain.
Football out, pot O.k.
Right. Got it.
WTF is this shit??? Tyler, I realize you need to cater to that new "core group" of neocon refugees... But are we actually TRYING to become foxnews?
And I thought pot heads were supposed to be mellow.
Oh look, speak of the devil...
Yeah yeah.. a few more ad homs and you'll have the ammo to attack your straw man.
No straw man here. Just seems that you are kind of sensitive to anyone picking on your Obama.
To what, your Rand?
Ayn Rand?
Rand Paul?
Rand Mcnally?
I need more if you want a reply, or was it something more cryptic that I failed to catch?
Kruger Rand.
Obama?!?! Wtf does that idiot have to do with this... I hate that fucker and all he stands for but people like YOU can't wrap your narrow minds around something so "out of YOUR ordinary."
You're actually a part of the problem. Its people like you, on both sides of the false aisle, that are our real hurdles... Not weed or any other meaningless symptom of a flawed system that actually perpetuates this type of thing.
The fact you believe I love or even like or even respect anything about our political system or the corporatocracy that runs it, let alone Obama, highlights your Pavlovian nature and inability to think past the 24 hour conditioning news cycle.
Now, carry on your with your hypocritical "conservative" stance and remind us all how we're "free" to do as you say.
Dawg, you're gonna need all the friends you can get going forward. Oldwood ain't your problem- trust me.
I know this is fight club, but pretty much everyone here is way ahead of the cultural curve, don'tcha think?
Lighten up.
No, I don't.
Wake up.
Oh, so you're the center of the universe. My bad. I hadn't noticed.
He was cheated by his only friend, Barry. Have some sympathy.
LOfknL
The cartoon implies that obama is a hypocrite about pot and you see it as a bow to neocons. You made it political. Obama is president. He is making the statements, be they true or false. You just seem pretty tense about the conservative thing when the discussion is about Obama and his stand on pot. It seems that plenty of libs have been against pot and have putting people in jails for years. No problem with them? Or is it simply your love of freedom that drives your rant?
How did I make it political when the cartoon IS political?!! It makes a fucking stupid and absolutely ridiculous association and caters to a mainstream position whether they were BUSH words OR Obama's. Typical mainstream scare tactic that in this case appeals to YOUR view.
My suggestion that the cartoon would find a supportive audience on foxnews made you ASSUME, typically, that not only am I'm a fan, but that I must LOVE obama.
A PoLITICAL cartoon blaming BUSH's foreign and economic policies on his drug use wouldn't belong here EITHeR.... Unless, of course, this site has completely disconnected from its libertarian roots.
But you'll never see a world that can't fit into your false dichotomies. So you react with my LOVE for Obama.... And sadly yet predictably, you immediately tune out.
Akin to I must be RAYCISSs.
What u do is no different.
Tickhound, in case you didn't know; ///////zh is owned by ABC and ABC is owned by Disney corp. They post articles with the intent to get as many readers and comments as possible. Tyler is good at what he does and I enjoy reading the comments as much or more than the articles. For me that is what ZH is for. Sometimes it does turn into fight club and that can be interesting as well, but I think you should lighten up. You seem to take the comments too seriously. ZH is not going to change the world but it is good reading. It provides something to do while the world crashes around us.
Admin Name: Georgi Hristozov Admin Organization: ABC Media Ltd Admin Street: P.O. Box 3 Admin City: Sofia Admin State/Province: Sofia Admin Postal Code: 1784 Admin Country: BG Bulgaria. I've heard the host servers are in Switzerland, but cannot confirm that. In any case, it's not likely Mickey Mouse owns ZH.
We live in a pre-idiocracy. Progresives banned alcohol in the past during prohibition, today they regulate, ban or restrict eveything you consume. They simply legalized weed for taxes and control, but too many idiots today don't reason, they "feel" their way around life, so don't bother.
They are legalizing pot to make room in the prisons for all the domestic terrorists when the SHTF.
It seems that the divide and conquer trlls have now found ZH. Maybe obobo ha signed an exec disorder for all of the EBT crowd to get online and fight back against us fucks who actually have a job and pay taxes for the 47% that do not.
LOL! You win the fool of the night award. You actually think that any of the TV news is any different? It is all Operation Mockingbird you moron.
I bet you watch TV like a drooling idiot.
Since when does satire about an incompetent president and incomprehensible set of policies make ZH Fox News? How the fuck can you call ZHers "neocon refugees"? Are you saying you are so blinded by ideologoly and the MSM that you DON'T think 99% of Obama's policies look like they come from a group of poly sci undergrads after a 20 hour bongothon with the chronic? I have no dog in any of these fights, but:
1. Obama is an idjit
2. pot is not as safe as cigarettes (IF SMOKED IN THE SAME QUANTITY)
3. pot is as safe as alcohol
4. Obamacare is a bothced abortion
5. the Obama foriegn policy is retarded
6. and you are a puddinghead.
Ramirez..you're a shit stain!
Hes not making mistakes because hes high on marijuana. Hes intentionally following orders..to the masters of the banking universe. Figure it out ass hole. Its the PLAN!
Fuck you again for trying to say MJ does anything negative..prove it.
Wheres the conclusive evidence?
This cartoon is just wrong.
Its a plan by elites and weed isnt a scapegoat.
RIPS
Yes, everyone knows that pot heads are at the top of the list of winners. Anyone who thinks being stoned is better than straight should feel right at home with this fucked up make believe economy we are all "enjoying". Drugs and booze give our "leaders" everything they need to control us, clearly rational thought is their single greatest threat.
Michael Phelps wins shitloads of gold medals (pothead) and Denver and Seattle are in the Super Bowl (pot states).
Winners don't smoke weed.
Champions do.
www.singledudetravel.com
Fucking geniuses, every one. I think I saw one of those illiterates on TV. Oh yes, and we just had one of the Cowboys going to jail for killing his team mate in a drunken car crash. Why don't we all get stoned? Pot is better than booze? Sure that makes it all good. People do drugs and booze to escape. Winners work it out, they don't need to get high to feel good about themselves. Jesus, it isn't hard to figure out why the world is so screwed. I truly do feel sorry for people who think they have to get high to feel good.
Live and let live. It's a free country. /sarc
Glad you threw that sarc in there lol
Obama’s War on PotWhile the press has hailed the president’s “public health” approach, the White House has cracked down on cannabis.
http://www.thenation.com/article/176920/obamas-war-pot?page=0,1
"Live and let live. It's a free country."
Tell that to your progressive buddies in gov who regulate every aspect of a persons life. Every new law and regulation is another piece of liberty lost.
"People do drugs and booze to escape. Winners work it out, they don't need to get high to feel good about themselves."
Really, you presume to know the motives of everyone who chooses to drink / smoke / whatever and that they are always the same on every occasion and that they can be summed up in two words; "to escape"?
Where we agree though is in feeling sorry for those who think that they have to get high to feel good. fwiw. I feel more sorry for them when they're arrested and treated like criminals.
B.
Its complicated. I think drugs are dangerous and to act like they are not is foolish. I have personal experience that informs my opinions as I'm sure yours do. Prison is no place for drug users, but street side sales are not the answer either. Drugs alter the way we think, or we wouldn't use them. It is an altered state, escape or not. I don't think it takes to much imagination to connect those dots. To act like it is koolaid is not realistic. As far as the punishment, I do feel that it is too much, but its not like people are getting busted for stealing food. they know the rules and choose to do it anyway. Is it a constitutionally principled act of defiance or do they just want to get high? Drugs make their own rules and while we should not be punishing addiction, we should not be enabling it either. people have been in these debates for many years. This is nothing new. What is new is how governments are behaving and WHY NOW.
"Its complicated. I think drugs are dangerous and to act like they are not is foolish. I have personal experience that informs my opinions as I'm sure yours do."
I agree that all drugs are potentially dangerous and I'd go further and say that most users don't understand the potential dangers when they start using, which compounds the dangers. I think when people talk about drug use they make two dangerous generalisations, the first of which is to consider all drugs as drugs and the second of which is to consider all people as people. Two individuals can respond very differently to the same drug, which in itself makes the use of drugs dangerously unpredictable.
Personally, I could die from eating peanuts and I have a caffiene habit to rival any other but I don't want to see a "war on food and beverages" any more than I appreciate the continuation of the war-on-people-associated-with-illegal-drug-use-except-those-who-are-furthering-foreign-policy-interests-or-returning-profit-to-shareholders-who,-it-turns-out,-are-about-85-people. Which, frankly, I suspect could be better characterised as a war against people significantly disrupting TPTBs established or planned revenue streams.
If some people who use drugs then become addicts and commit crimes then it seems logical to me to charge them for the crimes they commit and help them with their addiction, which, as I'm sure we both know, often means helping them with other issues because people who don't have other issues generally don't become drug addicts. Why make a crime of using drugs? What next? Kids who interrupt their teachers are more likely to become criminals so make a crime of interrupting teachers and tax their parents to pay for it and send the kid to some private prison for people who can afford lobbyists to profit from their labour?
"Prison is no place for drug users, but street side sales are not the answer either. Drugs alter the way we think, or we wouldn't use them. It is an altered state, escape or not."
QA is important everywhere and perhaps especially with regard to pharmaceutical agents so street side sales are a humanitarian disaster as far as I'm concerned. I agree with the altered state assesment but I take the view that it is possible for educated people to weigh the benefits and costs and make their own decisions. As the USAF have done in originally using methamphetamine then later substituting with modafinil in their go-pills. If some USAF pilot retires then based on his personal experience sees fit to use metamphetamine or modafinil in some private venture of his then am I willing to assume that he aught to be arrested or denied access to the substance? No. That seems absurd to me. Am I willing to pay a government that doesn't represent me to treat him thus in my name? No. That seems perverse to me. Do I have a choice? No, not really.
I read recently of some kid who was taken into police custody on drugs charges for posession of weed who died of an allergic reaction to the food he was given at the station even though he'd made the cops aware of his allergy and inquired as to the contents of the food. Who benefits? Couldn't they just have driven him home and sat him down with his parents for a chat? Invited him to church maybe?
"To act like it is koolaid is not realistic."
I couldn't agree more. Every drug of which the posession and sale has been made a crime has had some adverse effect on some group of people. What follows is a well worn argument about harm reduction that I'm sure we're both familiar with and an argument of the principle of freedom of which I'm sure we're both equally familiar.
"What is new is how governments are behaving and WHY NOW"
That's a great question, as is "Why isn't it possible to know what your government is doing, and why, by watching the MSM?" and "What has become of our democratic ideals?", "When our forefathers layed down their lives in battle for the posterity of ourselves and our countrymen, was it for what we have today?", "When people stoically withstood torture by the Nazis for the benefit of the free world was it on the assumption that the free world would include PRISM, the NSA, the DEA, record wealth disparity, domestic drones, rigged markets, banking monopolies, lobbying monopolies, or, in the case of todays drug users, taxation without representation, e.t.c, e.t.c, e.t.c."
B.
It has been 18 years since California went semi-legal.
Anybody hysterical about CO and WA laws creating vast numbers of new pot-smokers, is demonstrably ignorant about the regularity with which they already come into contact with people under the influence. They can't tell except in the most extreme cases.
It would be funny if it wasn't so fucking annoying.
Drug use is a sign of success. Anyone who has the spare time has succeeded in attaining everything else they need. Except the 10% or so who are addicts, which requires treatment.
According to Dave Mustaine (founder of Megadeth), he sold dope to survive before he got famous.
He took smack because he thought it made him more creative ( but as much as he has some great music, I'm positive that he could have done better without drugs. Some songs are crap, other songs you can hear where he has run out of ideas or has difficulty in a transition At the very least, the drugs didn't make his music perfect. )
According to Chrissie Amphlett (singer of Divinyls), the US music industry runs on cocaine.
According to various sources, the finance world runs on cocaine.
According to Johnny Cash, he used different drugs to enhance his performance, help him sleep, help him wake up, make him happy, make him sad, etc etc etc. (Feel free to check that one, it's a long time since I read about it).
It really annoys me that people who are rich enough to do anything just blow all that time and money on drugs. Where TF is their precious imagination now? But I get the feeling that drugs are somehow integral to their success, even if it just means that they socialize better with their drug-fucked contacts. I used to think they were just idiots that didn't know how to handle sudden success and large bundles of money. Now, I'm not so sure.
Don't make me go there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc
Whoops! Too late.
:P
Well, under that metric we can all take whatever we want and become famous rock star / actor / stock market billionaires. How many celebrities don't end up in rehab?
Celebrity rehab is a business decision at least as often as it is a matter of life and death.
Yep. It's part of the career path - free publicity from drug binges, minor stoushes and rehab; endless interviews about drugs and rehab; a book about drugs and rehab ... I can't believe the sheeple don't get bored with it.
Where does SatchMo & Willie fall on your list, Oldw
o
o
d
?
"I don't have a problem with drugs, I have a problem with the police!" -- Keith Richards
Oldwood may have a closed mind on this matter, but that don't mean he's your enemy when tshtf. I imagine we'll all learn a thing or two.
Oldwood, you wouldn't understand "rational thought" if it slapped you in the face. The FACT is, I have a 140+ IQ. The FACT is, I have become much *smarter* due to smoking cannabis daily. Do some fucking research and stop being a shill for the forces of evil.
Alcohol and tobacco causes brain damage.
Not like Public School does in the US.
Actually, it is easy to argue that cigarettes and alcohol are WORSE than pot...and possible by a very far margin. The health problems caused by booze and cigs are very obvious and all agree on them.
The health problems associated with pot are very controversial/debateable .... and lord knows, the government has spent tons of money TRYING to find those health problems.
So, pot problems have been difficult to find even though tons of funds have been spent trying to find them. Could pot be harmful? maybe.....maybe not. My guess is that pot is FAR less harmful than a sedentary lifestyle. Wanna make "being sedentary" illegal?
Just so you know: I think Obama is a bad guy (similar to the last few presidents)
There was no money in it until they legalize it. No money in decriminalizing weed, but fools don't know the difference, so they get screwed as usual. We'll need a new enforcement agency, like an ATF&W to make sure taxes are paid and it all stays legal.
Most states have had cannabis tax stamps for decades. I've seen them in Minnesota.
Nobody ever bought them for obvious reasons.
Cigarette co's have copyrighted "Brands"
The whole industry is going to make alot of people rich.
likewise... no comment here either...
I guess swallowing semen causes brain damage too
Banker/oligarch semen clearly does.
Only for women Mr Pink, they're the ones swallowing when you blow your load.
oh please. half the sanctimous republicans huffing and puffing about this have smoked.
but, hey, don't let me rain on the "we hate obama" parade......distracts attention from the folks who are really running this economy right into the ground....the six major banks.....
and if you don't think they own the government at this point and that Obama is anything other than their puppet....welll......
smoke a couple of joints and stay completely useless.
oh please. half the sanctimous republicans huffing and puffing about this have smoked.
but, hey, don't let me rain on the "we hate obama" parade......distracts attention from the folks who are really running this economy right into the ground....the six major banks.....
and if you don't think they own the government at this point and that Obama is anything other than their puppet....welll......
smoke a couple of joints and stay completely useless.
wash your hans, your keyboard is sticky.
That's the hash oil...(PS. your D is stu k)
that should read 'wash your hands Hans'
Lamest cartoon on ZH ever.
Pot does NOT cause brain damage, and this was actually one of the FEW THINGS OBAMA GOT RIGHT.
Legal pot is a no-brianer. The cartoonist should try it some time. And I bet if Obama still did smoke pot, his policies would be a LOT better.
I think it was the voters of WA and CO who got it right. Obama was out golfing since he prefers to leave the "small stuff" to others to sort out. Could it be his biggest accomplishments will be the things he didn't do?
Isn't that what we want from government, less? Of course this is probably his most positively viewed policy. Oh look at that, they don't even have to subsidize it. Oh... my... gosh.... they are making tax revenue off it! Murder rates have... not spiked. In fact they are probably pretty much the same, give or take a school shooting here or there (completely different drugs involved with those). What's more is that pot's illegality has empowered criminals because no matter how illegal it is, people will still buy pot, lots of people. Cutting out the cartels, all for it.
If we are going to allow booze and tabacco then we would be hypocrits for not having legal pot. If someone comes up with a report that shows it is much worse then that needs to be tested again and then decisions made from there. This kind of standard, applied as an actual standard, would be a start toward having a logical and representative government. People may not like pot. They may not like booze. They may not like tobacco. They do not have to use any of them. The key is that the people are able to choose for themselves on a subject that quite easily fits into the range of risk society at large deems acceptable.
Sounds like socialism but there is a point where society just won't let you go. What is considered to be socially acceptable levels of danger are one of them. Smoking pot is not like arming to protect yourself. If someone wants to smoke pot and do nothing that is fine. We each pay for our rewards sooner or later. My problem is when you say I have pay to take care of them. If you think that is so important then you pay. Let me pay for what I think is important and likely to make life better.
Blah
"... his biggest accomplishments will be the things he didn't do?"
Best line in the comments so far, Midas!
Of course, never underestimate the ability of stupid stereotypes to amuse.
On the other hand, my favourite particular reason WHY "marijuana" is illegal, to zoom in on that one, in the galaxy of reasons, may be bolstered by this obseveration, from this particular authority (amongst many others) the December, 2004, issue of the Scientific American:
One effect of marijuana is to help people forget learned fear.
Why would a drug that helped some people decrease the after-effects from trauma be despised by governments?
The answer is related to the fact that the fundamental basis of our political economy was built on the history of maintaining conditions of ignorance and fear in the vast majority of the population, so that they can be controlled and exploited. The big bullies especially do not like marijuana because it tends to make people feel less afraid of those bullies. One reason pot prohibition is a perpetual political persecution is because the established systems depend on people staying afraid, while pot may interfere with that.
Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever that cannabis causes brain damage, which Zero Hedge acknowledged in the italicized fine print under the cartoon. (After all, since no possible overdose amount is ever fatal, it is clear that marijuana could not be obviously harmful.) But nevertheless, there is an overwhelming abundance of junk science which has been promoted for the purposes of propaganda, inside of the historical processes where slavery rationalized racism, which then segued into the drug wars.
THE BASIC REALITIES ARE DEBT SLAVERY, BACKED BY WARS BASED ON DECEITS. Our society is simply sophisticated systems of slavery, in which stereotypes continue to work all to well in their roles of mind control. Pot prohibition became one of the major manifestations of wars based on deceits, in order to maintain the overall social system of debt slavery. (Like all the rest of America's wars, the war on drugs was primarily paid for by money made out of nothing, as debts, so that the longer term consequences are way worse.) Of course, President Obama has mostly been an egregious hypocrite on that particular topic, the same as on every other topic that one critically examines. After all, the real reason WHY Obama is President is that he was the best professional liar and immaculate hypocrite able to do that job for the international banksters.
Let me fix it for you Brian.
"Legal pot is a no-brianer."
Decriminalize it.
Legal = pay tax and get permit to grow it
Decriminalize = its another plant in my front yard.
Happy day to you.
RIPS
DEAD ON.
People talk about 'legalising' weed. You don't want to legalize it, since that means the STATE has to legitimize it.
You just need them to decriminlize (i.e. DE-regulate) it, and let the market work.
I wonder if they just decrminlized weed in Mexico, I'd posit the drug cartels would be out of business in 6 months. If weed sells for $5 a joint, who'd want to run guns and risk death for a $5 joint?
Now if only the rest of the damn country would grow up and realise decriminalizing weed doesn't mean we CONDONE or ENCOURAGE it. It should still be restricted from children, and there should be consequences if you drive while impaired (be it a cellphone, a hamburger, alcohol or a joint).
Cartels, banks and gubmint are a team.
Gangland is where you live.
Legalized banking
"...and there should be consequences if you drive while impaired (be it a cellphone, a hamburger, alcohol or a joint)."
Sorry, no. You should be held accountable (i.e., suffer consequences) if you actually cause harm to another while using a cellphone,hamburger, etc. libertarians used to appreciiate the crucial difference between potentialities and actualities.
Maybe Tyler had a point running this cartoon. Certainly shed some light on some of the posters here.
That's kinda arbitrary -- I mean, some people can just handle their hamburger better than others. </sarc>
I'm a libertarian and I disagree. I don't give a rats shit if you sit on your porch stoned off your head or are legless on home made hooch. But get behind a wheel in that condition then you are a menace to me and mine and it is bull to say there should be no consequences (like getting locked up overnight until you dry out) until you run into me. Once the actualities happen (like my brother in law killed by another driver) then you can't undo the damage (3 kids orphaned).
Your rights are unlimited only to the point where they infringe on my rights, including my right to share a public road in a somewhat safe manner with other responsible individuals.
And yes I know there is no perfect safety anywhere but at least aim for a reasonable level with the minimum infringements. It is called common sense.
Look here now, conservatives hate big government... unless it's to punish those for using a plant (which has been used as medicine for thousands of years without issue), or if it has anything to do with vaginas. In those cases, big government is good.
Or unless it involves waging war on the Neocon-chosen hapless victim de jour (in which case they are autmatically in favor of it), or unless it involves kneejerk acquiescence to authority and glorification of the armed forces and military aggression, or unless it involves the suppression and de facto illegalization of public protest and dissent, or unless ...
Years ago, I used to think that the defining characteristic of the modern 'liberal' was his glaring and overwhelming hypocrisy. I do think that in the last 12 years that crown has passed to the (so-called) conservative, though.
Yes, we conservatives are watching as the world looks like it's sliding down the tubes and are desperately grasping at straws, anything that might represent rationality. I'm sure the right for each and every fucking one of us to get stoned is most definitely going to save whats left of society. For those who are so quick to condemn what we conservatives yearn for, what is that you see looming before you, glowing in the horizon, that progressives are so eager to bring forth that you find so alluring? We can stamp our feet madly for the right to get stoned and do unlimited stupid and self destructive things, while our true freedoms are being taken away at this moment.
"...I'm sure the right for each and every fucking one of us to get stoned is most definitely going to save whats left of society."
Who in the fuck makes this claim besides you?
"...while our true freedoms are being taken away at this moment."
You're scary dude. Your own hypocrisy, contradictions, exaggerations... Hardly conservative. Paranoid is more like it.
I'm sure you are right. Just light up another doobie if things get a little foggy for you. I'm sure everything will be as right as rain. Reality IS scary.
YOU are our reality. And yeah THAT is fucking scary.
Wouldn't "We Conservatives" have a bit better fit on Faux?
Well, we definitely don't have a place in New York. I hear we just don't belong! I'm sure as your world turns those who believe in marriage of men and women for procreation, those who believe that Government has no power to grant anyone "rights", and especially those who believe that we should be able to keep and own what we earn will be a distant ugly memory. Good luck.
Gosh and to think... ALL of that just cuz of pot.
I guess you guys could try and ratchet UP that WAR on weed with one more UNTO the breach!!!
LOL
Some of we conservative's "libertarian" allies often seem to miss the big picture.
Red team, blue team; so many choices, I can't decide....
I can't say if it is brain damaging but it can definitely be life damaging. While I'm all for freedom to fuck yourself up any way a person should want, what we are suffering here is that those who would desire to fuck themselves up, do so at a cost to everyone else. They may not desire it to be that way but it is. Our government has decided that we are all responsible for whatever any dumbfuck does. We must provide healthcare if your lungs get so bad you can't breath, and disability when you are just too stoned to work and rehab if and when you might decide to partake. I vote for you to do what ever the fuck you want, but only if and WHEN big gov gets off my back with your bills. Just as with immigration, we all understand the hardships and fucked up nature of it but I will never support any kind of "legalization" of those here illegally until they close the fucking border. Everyone wants "their" freedoms, they just don't give a fuck about anyone else's. We all know the drug laws need to change and we don't need all these fools in prison for being dumbshits. I mean really? They didn't know it was illegal? But the real question to me is why NOW? I think we all know the answer to that and for the Pro Pot heads, they may not give a shit, as likely they care not about much else, but for every other thinking person this is a giant distraction and another means for division. We have a blight of drug abuse, prescription and otherwise right now. We need clear thinking cognitive people out there if we have any chance of saving whats left of this mess, and the best fight we got is over the right to be stoned???really???
So, are you in favor of banning cigarettes and alcohol, since they are worse than marijuana? Do you like cartels and the War on Drugs?
Do you like paying taxes to keep people in jail for using marijuana, but not for nicotine or alcohol, which are demonstrably worse?
Or do you want morality police to control everyone's thoughts and behavior?
Good points from both of the above.
As a libertarian, I think most things are simply none of the State's damn business, including most drugs.
My one caveat is that today's pot is an order of magnitude stronger than in the days of my youth, when I avoided the stuff.
This should get some serious study, which it can't, when it's in the same class as heroine.
One of the reasons FDR was so popular (despite his gold confiscation and disastrous, fascistic economic policies) was the fact he presided over ending prohibition.
As they taketh, so shall the give...with taxes of course.
I'm not for banning much of anything. I just think that vices are vises, not to be honored or glamorized as something they are not. Pot may have some legitimate uses but we all know that is not what this is about. this about getting high. And while I think it is stupid to surrender your mind to any drug or ideology, I believe that there is reason why NOW. You have to recognize that the powers that seek to control us want our dependence. That dependence is financial as well is mental. A stoned public that is easily pacified and is also potentially addicted can not be a better candidate for this government to control. I understand that there are those who see this as a real issue, and in abstract it is, but freedoms are relative. We all give up things to live in a society with others, but there should be a limit and right now, getting stoned offers more lows than highs, just sayin.
@Oldwood
First of all you spell it cannot.
I've read through entries and here are a few things you might want to take back to the "conservatives"
There is more to the politcal landscape that just liberal/progressive and conservative. And I'm not speaking of the human debris that self-indentify as "moderate".
Freedoms are NOT relative. They just are. What if I chose to not give anything up? To what length are YOU willing to go to deny me those freedoms? Provide I live a life that does not inflict damage or harm on another or any of their property, by what right do you execise power of me and whether or not I injest something, smoke something, or-since I do none of that-force me to pay for the education of other people's children. At what point and hoiw far will YOU go to confisccate MY property to pay for other people's children if indeed I should choose to not do so? You believe in public schools, right? You probably sent your kids their, right? Well I do not. I do not have children and I do not want to infect other children with public schooling much less be forced to pay for it.
So what is your action? I'll tell you what it is. You hire a third party to TAKE MY PROPERTY BY FORCE AT THE POINT OF A GUN if necessary then you sleep well with the feeling that YOU have not down anything wrong or immoral. But you have.
This is the flaw of conservatism. It's really just tyranny lite. It functions on coercion and violence just like those datsrdly progressive and liberal do only it focuses on different subject matter.
The first couple posts were just what sounds like a 12 step program guy on step 6 or 7 preaching to the world about what is good or bad for them. Vices? Really? I've read all the major religion handbooks (you know The Bible The Quran) and I must be missing the part about inhaling a plant as being "immoral or wicked behavior."(definition) True the Muslims do not consume alcohol but even on that they are split and I wouldn't define their abstinence as avoiding a "vice".
Now perhaps sending a gang of armed thives toi your neighbors house to take their money to pay for your kid's education-now THAT I'd define as immoral or wicked.
By this p[ost you've tailed off a bit and start with "I'm not for banning much of anything" to soothe opposition. Then you seem to go on and justify why cannibis should remain illegal or well, I don't know what you're trying to say at this point.
Any half wit knows that pot changes your psysiology. Duh. Psylicybin does as well. It grows in nature on its own. Just like pot. Perhaps the "legitimate uses" for which you search might just be EXACTLY WHAT THESE SUBATNCES DO. And as far as that goes who the fuck are you or anyone else to define what is "legitimate" so long as the activity does not interfere with YOUR freedom and liberty.
It's just the same as every last piece of shit progressive big idea that ever came before it. Tyranny is tyranny.
Lastly to the point of specifically "pot" and it's legality. Do you know why it was banned in first place? If you said due to a concern for public health and safety then you need to go to the BACK of the class. No crony capitalist paper manufacturers (mostly but other industrial goods were affected as well) wanted to rid themselves of competition from hemp-the non active (not pot) gender of the species. Hooray for our perverted form of "capitalism"!
Before that hemp and cannabis was cultivated in the US since well, way back. In fact there are a few guys that most of you "conservatives" get real excited about that had some experience with all that.
You know all those guys like Jefferson, Madison, etc?
High as a fucking kite. I mean Life Liberty AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS? Are you fucking kidding me? He was stoned when he penned that for God's sake!
For the record I find pot boring. But there si a tom of music on my hard drive that would probably just SUCK like the shit around today if it weren't for all these illegal drugs and the accompanying VICES.
There you education for the evening is done.
Thanks artless, I really appreciate the education. What I'm trying to figure out is why there is such a strong reaction to my dislike of drugs. I have not told you to not do it except to say I think it is a dumb thing to do. We all do dumb things so I don't think that's much of an indictment. I do not support prison time for those who choose to imbibe. Conservatives are conservative. They don't like change. As far as soft tyranny I agree, except that it has always been that way, if not worse, and yes, if given the choice of freedom of speech compared to freedom of pot, I take speech. No one is absolutely free if they live in an organized society. We have to give things up, like how fast we drive or a infinite number of other laws, the premise being that they are supported by a majority of people. This does not make it right, but probably more right than some individual just deciding for all of us. yes drug laws are fucked. We all pretty much agree. My whole fucking point is that of timing, why now? A stoned public serves the government best and I think that is pretty plain to see. Most don't seem to be getting anything from what I'm saying other than I dislike pot, which is secondary to my point and has nothing to do with legalization. It has it uses and some may be good, but for most it is about getting high. Like that is our outstanding fucking priority right now.
Oldwood,
I was a little taken aback over the vehemence towards you considering you didn't seem very strong in you stance against drugs. Concerned mostly. I can relate in a way because though I never did drugs I truly abused food often bingeing to excess. I justified it for so many years claiming I deserved to do it because of too much stress. I felt it was the only freedom I had in an oppressive life I was leading. I was doing what I wanted and if I was becoming fat or unhealthy I didn't give a shit. The list went on forever. Any slight criticism of this was met with anger and more binges.
One day I finally realized I was using food as a crutch and an escape. I wanted to quit and, fortunately, found a wonderful cognitive psycologist that helped me out of the pit. That was 6 months of hell but I am ever so grateful I did it. The problem with food is there is no cold turkey quit. I had to learn to eat responsibly. I now occasionally indulge in foods I used to binge on but the funny thing is, the "high" is gone.
I think when you criticise something that a person is using as a crutch, they tend to attack the person making the criticism rather than focusing inward and questioning why they are doing what they are doing. It's a fear of revealing something that, if revealed, may mean they must do something about it. This can be very frightening and it's just easier to keep the status quo and feel safe. During the dark time in my life I really felt this way.
I don't claim to know why people do drugs. I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons. But, if people were to be a bit more mindful in their lives and not just do things out of habit they may discover something very precious about themselves and may find numbing out or getting high may be less fulfilling.
Miffed;-)
Mrs. Miffed, you always add valuable to the discussion. Carry on.
With any legalisation of cannabis it's not as suddenly everybody will be smoking it.
Those that need it medicaly, as i do, are already using it. I have MS.
The other users are already using it to.
Nothing will really change for anybody but maybe those that want to control others will have one less avenue to do so.
I'm guessing this Country has one or two other pressing issues besides Cannabis.
Perhaps it is better for the urban masses to be pacified with video games and marijuana so they don't run around destroying private property and harming other citizens like a bunch of hornets that attack anything they can when their nest is kicked.
I mean, if they cannot properly identify who is the problem and what solutions are, wouldn't it be better for the rest of us if they just stay asleep?
Otherwise, the masses may push for more and more government to help them.
I agree oldwood. Where I sit let me tell you the preponderance of hospital admissions I see are from prescription drug abuse as well as properly used. The severe illicit drug addicts I see are usually homeless and do tend to be frequent fliers, but nothing compares to the explosion of prescription drug reactions.
I'm not a drug user and don't advocate their use just because I have seen terrible things that happen to people and their families when someone is addicted. That said, I do not wish to tell someone what to do with their lives because it frankly doesn't interest me nor is it any of my business unless they hurt one of my loved ones. Then I will have no mercy. I have the sense this issue with marijuana is simply a distraction, a ploy in a play book that has been way over used. So it's best not to take the bait.
Miffed;-)
Well said, Miffed. Druggies are often losers with destroyed bodies, but that doesn't always establish cause and effect. Drugs and alcohol are ways of dealing with disaster, as well as causes.
Less socialism, and letting people deal with the consequences of their actions, would solve many problems, and yes, NO MERCY.
I have a 60 year old sister who has smoked pot most of her adult life. not much, just enough to get the effect. I asked her about it a few years ago, since I don't do any intoxicants, besides coffee. she told me without the pot she would go crazy. I believe the marijuana has kept her safe from the various pharma solutions to depression or anxiety etc. my sister has been married for 30 years, she just bought a house on a golf course in arizona, and paid cash. she called to tell me she got a gas powered golf cart, and when her husband retires this year, they will get a small motorhome, and do a little visiting. she seems to be pretty functional and content. and she's pretty fit and healthy. myself, I don't like the way it makes me feel.
"I have the sense this issue with marijuana is simply a distraction, a ploy in a play book that has been way over used. So it's best not to take the bait."
An alternative explanation comes to mind. First, it's a ploy for more tax harvesting (just like Obamacare was), and second it's related to changes already taking place at the state level. An interesting analog occurred in the late 1970s and early 80s when states began entering into interstate branching arrangments with neighboring states. Interstate branching, it should be pointed out, was illegal under federal banking laws (and was one of the principal contributors to US banking fragility for over 2 centuries). By the 1990s, enough states had simply ignored federal branching restrictions such that Congress recognized its losing position and legalized what had already become defacto interstate branching in 1994. I would suggest a similar fate awaits pot laws. Congress will race to get to the front a parade that has already passed it by.
When I found that my son was smoking a lot of pot I intervened and warned him that it would harm his rational thinking. I think that there is a time and a place for having fun and smoking pot/drinking. Mostly in college/maybe a few years after.
I really poured my heart out to him because a lot of my close friends got into it and really fucked up their lives. He thanks me now and he's also a very successful person living a very rewarding life as an entrepreneur It was a very heart to heart talk.
He has made millions and is a person of integrity. Sometimes in youth you need to experiment with mind altering fun. That's fine. Take that fun and knowlege and use it. But then it's time to get serious. I remember saying to him "why do you think they call it getting fucked-up"? Fucked up is not good. Our country is fucked up. You need to be not fucked up.
The homegrown stuff now is 10x's better/stronger than the old Panama Red, Columbian Gold etc that imported in the 70's. All of this modern shit is too much for me.
That explains some of my Saturday night posts.
What about people who knowingly eat shitty food, or sit on their asses and watch media? Do people think clearly when they fill their bodies with over-processed garbage, industrial wastes, and mind-numbing propaganda? Do we not have to pay their healthcare/disability/unemployment/etc. when they become too fat/lazy/unhealthy/stupid to be productive? Exact same comparison if you ask me, except the food and media is worse in my opinion. (This is all really about moderation in all things by the way, but we'll not get into all that right now, as most people have been trained to not moderate anything.)
I mean, I think it's stupid and wrong to do a lot of things; but I'm not going to tell people that they can't do certain things. If you start doing that, where do you draw the line? Best just to explain to them why they shouldn't do something and let natural consequences take care of the rest.
I think the real point here is that we can all agree that, if big gov. got OUT of ALL of this; then real consequences would begin to change behavior once again, as it was intended; and much of this would cease to be a major issue.
We're all fundamentally on the same team here. I hope.
gold 1277....oops......
and with that the banks lose control......
what's going to be itneresting is what they direct obama to do as this entire economy craters AGAIN
and the banks move to loot the peasants AGAIN.
gold 1277....oops......
and with that the banks lose control......
what's going to be itneresting is what they direct obama to do as this entire economy craters AGAIN
and the banks move to loot the peasants AGAIN.