Text 21608, 125 rader
Skriven 2008-10-06 16:35:39 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 21595 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Legal Strictions
========================
06 Oct 08 13:00, Robert Bashe wrote to Roy Witt:

 RB> Roy Witt wrote to Robert Bashe on Sunday October 05 2008 at 11:59:

 RB>>> The only metnods for marijuana uptake are smoking and "cookies"
 RB>>> with an extract.

 RW>> I can see that you're a product of the 60s, but you've been left way
 RW>> behind by reality.

 RB> Actually, I'm a product of the 50s, but I still read the newspapers
 RB> occasionally.

Do they still print those?

 RB> David calls us "old fogies" and I'm not sure he isn't 100% right.

I'm not an old fogey...why, just today I had to jump inside a vehicle
through the window. That was how we did it in the 50s.

 RB>>> Hell, Roy, I haven't even _seen_ a hemp plant in my life, and still
 RB>>> I know more about the subject than you do

 RW>> Or so you claim. OTH, I've smoked a few joints in my lifetime, which
 RW>> makes me an authority, compared to your experience.

 RB> I read "smoked". Am I misinterpreting? At any rate, you're right: the
 RB> only thing I ever did that was even moderately frowned on was to
 RB> smoke snapdragon stems when I was 12 or 13...

 st>>>>> (both of which are HIGHLY addictive, and "pot" is NOT addictive).

 RW>>>> Government studies show that it is.

 RB>>> Like tobacco, eh? Just have to believe such myths.

 RW>> Remember to get your doctor updated.

 RB> For junk like that? I mentioned my personal experience, but you
 RB> wisely decided not to quote it.

Wisely? It didn't matter, thus no need to quote anything.

 st>>>>>   I believe in the "FREEDOM" of the "right to choose".

 RW>>>> Yeah, you probably believe in the right to take an innocent life
 RW>>>> too.

 RB>>> Which has what to do with marijuana?

 RW>> Democrats advocate the killing of babys (abortion)...

 RB> Migawd, Roy... I knew you had some extreme views, but I thought you
 RB> were more intelligent than to spout such mindless propaganda.

That isn't propaganda, it's reality.

 RB>  I never thought of you as the "religious right", but maybe I have to
 RB> revise my opinion now.

I haven't a religious bone in my body (although I do believe in a supreme
being). I merely advocate the belief in the right to life, unlike people
like Shannon and his ilk. And frankly, I don't care one way or the other
about 'Roe v Wade'...

 RB>>> If that means that we think everyone has the right to decide for
 RB>>> themselves, instead of being forced to behave as a "big brother"
 RB>>> government thinks we should, I guess you're right.

 RW>> You're trying to put the whole ball of wax on the shoulders of
 RW>> government when what we're talking about is a social and medical
 RW>> issue.

 RB> Who makes the laws? The doctors, their patients, the FDA?

There was a doctor in the Congress last session. I think he's still there.
Does he count?

 RB>  Damned right I put the burden on government - and thus on the
 RB> shoulders of the people least trained and least capable of making
 RB> sound decisions on complex subjects.

Oversight, oversight, oversight. Committees sit in hearings and listen to
to the testimony of people in the profession, for or against. It's not
just cut and dry; we have decided without any thought or outside input, to
pass this legislation because we don't know what we're doing.

 RB>>> The funny part about this is that I consider myself a conservative,
 RB>>> more politically right than left, and still my beliefs are to the
 RB>>> left of what you apparently embrace.

 RW>> If you believe that, then you're too far left. What I'm advocating
 RW>> is middle of the road, which is conservatively just a mm to my left.

 RB> If that's the "middle of the road", Roy, then I'm apparently a
 RB> hard-left socialist in your view,

Socialist? I believe that's probably true.

Hard left, I don't think so.

 RB>  as are all those who advocate less government interference in
 RB> private affairs.

I agree with that premise, to a point. When it comes to legalizing
something that is no better than tobacco and alcohol, I don't agree to
that unless it's for non-medical reasons. Tax the hell out of it and let
the suckers smoke it, just so long as it's taxed so high the public won't
have to foot the bill for their health care.

 RB> The strange thing is that I always thought that was the mark of a
 RB> hard-line conservative.

Not true. You'd be much happier supporting Libertarian views.

 RB>  Just shows how wrong you can be, eh?

Yeup.

                R\%/itt



--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)