[TheRealThing]

But, the "moral right" have no right to make decisions for others. It's above your pay grade. If I, or others want to smoke grass, it's none of your business.

No, you're wrong. In case you hadn't considered the following I'll offer it up to you. There is absolutely nothing new in today's rationale that weed should be legal, weed smokers have always agreed on that. I've smoked it, and I know the argument which says it doesn't impair one's judgement the next day is ludicris. Dope smokers have an attitude and that attitude is universal. They believe they are just more hip than those who don't smoke dope. Sort of like a brotherhood of the enlightened, if you will. My experience is such that it makes one the dumbest person in the room, unless it's a room full of folks smoking dope. In either case, those who are high are very easily impressed, ooing and ahing over the goofiest trivia. Frankly, the most superficial penetrations into the world of elevated thought are extremely short lived and usually self serving. The effects of dope smoking are cumulative, the more one smokes the more all they care about is partying. Anything that requires action, the riggors of life, work, bill paying, cars that won't start, anything that gets in the way of a good time is infuriating to dopers.

We are a society which has existed under a guiding principle, the rule of law. In order to preserve our way of life, even the president of the United States has traditionally not been considered above the law. In fact, presidents have always been expected to adhere to a very high standard of lawful service. Then we had Watergate, then we had MonicaGate, now we have BenghaziGate and several others running concurrently. Compromising our standards has us in moral free fall, as a result government at the state and federal levels are in chaos. When we turned our back on morality, which has always been a reflection of God's written Word, we began to lose our sense of direction. Having abandoned the code on which our system of law was established, the scriptures, cases are settled by arguments. Ever listened to two attorneys arguing a point of law? Always 180 degrees out. We have become a society devoid of absolutes. That once thin and definable line drawn between right and wrong, has been blurred by endless debate and compromise as it has now become a vast grey area of quasi-morality. With minds lighted now by this twilight of indifference, we have people declaring that they should be able to do whatever they choose, and "it's nobody's business". And, having abandoned God's law, who can argue the point? What are our judgements in law based on these days? Self gratification.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence deemed it a "self-evident truth" that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". If life was a party without responsiblity, your argument would make perfect sense. However, life is loaded with responsibilities which are embodied in the very concept of self governance, and responsibility lies well outside the boundaries of unbridled revelry.

[TheRealThing]

How does your being condescending to everybody that doesn't agree with you, and you thinking you have to be right about everything make you look?

Citizen's arrest, citizen's arrest! This is your opinion only, I certainly don't see that in Hoot's posts.

[TheRealVille]

No, you're wrong. In case you hadn't considered the following I'll offer it up to you. There is absolutely nothing new in today's rationale that weed should be legal, weed smokers have always agreed on that. I've smoked it, and I know the argument which says it doesn't impair one's judgement the next day is ludicris. Dope smokers have an attitude and that attitude is universal. They believe they are just more hip than those who don't smoke dope. Sort of like a brotherhood of the enlightened, if you will. My experience is such that it makes one the dumbest person in the room, unless it's a room full of folks smoking dope. In either case, those who are high are very easily impressed, ooing and ahing over the goofiest trivia. Frankly, the most superficial penetrations into the world of elevated thought are extremely short lived and usually self serving. The effects of dope smoking are cumulative, the more one smokes the more all they care about is partying. Anything that requires action, the riggors of life, work, bill paying, cars that won't start, anything that gets in the way of a good time is infuriating to dopers.

We are a society which has existed under a guiding principle, the rule of law. In order to preserve our way of life, even the president of the United States has traditionally not been considered above the law. In fact, presidents have always been expected to adhere to a very high standard of lawful service. Then we had Watergate, then we had MonicaGate, now we have BenghaziGate and several others running concurrently. Compromising our standards has us in moral free fall, as a result government at the state and federal levels are in chaos. When we turned our back on morality, which has always been a reflection of God's written Word, we began to lose our sense of direction. Having abandoned the code on which our system of law was established, the scriptures, cases are settled by arguments. Ever listened to two attorneys arguing a point of law? Always 180 degrees out. We have become a society devoid of absolutes. That once thin and definable line drawn between right and wrong, has been blurred by endless debate and compromise as it has now become a vast grey area of quasi-morality. With minds lighted now by this twilight of indifference, we have people declaring that they should be able to do whatever they choose, and "it's nobody's business". And, having abandoned God's law, who can argue the point? What are our judgements in law based on these days? Self gratification.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence deemed it a "self-evident truth" that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". If life was a party without responsiblity, your argument would make perfect sense. However, life is loaded with responsibilities which are embodied in the very concept of self governance, and responsibility lies well outside the boundaries of unbridled revelry.

There are tons of very smart people out there that hold jobs, and are/were productive to society. Think Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Ted Turner, and tons more people. You must have smoked herion, or something else, because if you smoke a joint at 9 pm tonight, it has zero effect the next day. That's fact, you can try to spin it, but if you say you smoked it, and it still affected you the next morning, you must have been smoking all night, right up until morning.


2nd bold: That is total BS, and you know it.

[TheRealThing]

There are tons of very smart people out there that hold jobs, and are productive to society. Think Steve Jobs, and tons more people. You must have smoked herion, or something else, because if you smoke a joint at 9 pm tonight, it has zero effect the next day. That's fact, you can try to spin it, but if you say you smoked it, and it still affected you the next morning, you must have been smoking all night, right up until morning.

LOL, Jobs didn't smoke after the 70's.

"Maybe this is how Apple Computer (now Apple, Inc) co-founder Steve Jobs developed the late 1990's ad slogan of “Think Different” – turns out marijuana was a regular part of Jobs’s life during the 1970s when he and partners Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne were on the verge of creating a computer revolution.

The details of Jobs’s drug use were revealed recently via documentation acquired from the Pentagon (the U.S. Dept of Defense) that investigated Jobs’s past in 1988 following his attempt to obtain a Top Security clearance while he was heading up Pixar (back then a computer graphics firm, now a groundbreaking animation film studio)." [High Times]

[TheRealVille]

LOL, Jobs didn't smoke after the 70's.

"Maybe this is how Apple Computer (now Apple, Inc) co-founder Steve Jobs developed the late 1990's ad slogan of “Think Different” – turns out marijuana was a regular part of Jobs’s life during the 1970s when he and partners Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne were on the verge of creating a computer revolution.

The details of Jobs’s drug use were revealed recently via documentation acquired from the Pentagon (the U.S. Dept of Defense) that investigated Jobs’s past in 1988 following his attempt to obtain a Top Security clearance while he was heading up Pixar (back then a computer graphics firm, now a groundbreaking animation film studio)." [High Times]

How about after 1988? I can tell you for a fact that you can get a very high level federal security clearance, and still smoke weed. :biggrin:

[TheRealThing]

How about after 1988? I can tell you for a fact that you can get a very high level federal security clearance, and still smoke weed. :biggrin:

You may be able to repeat something you've heard about the security clearance process at some level. You don't have one, I'm confident of that.

[TheRealVille]

You may be able to repeat something you've heard about the security clearance process at some level. You don't have one, I'm confident of that.

I have had in the past Q clearances for nuke plants, and at present have a high level clearance to work in any Federal building in the United States. I just got my final clearance letter(approval cleared), or what they called "favorably adjudicated", in May of this year, which btw, was a 5 month long background check. I've got the letter in front of me, as I type. Don't accuse me of lying when you don't have a clue. Anything else?

I would be willing to bet any amount of money, and will email, or fax you a copy, if you are willing to make a bet that is worth my time.

[TheRealVille]

^ Except maybe the White House, or Pentagon. I'm not sure on those two.

[TheRealThing]

I have had in the past Q clearances for nuke plants, and at present have a high level clearance to work in any Federal building in the United States. I just got my final clearance letter(approval cleared), or what they called "favorably adjudicated", in May of this year, which btw, was a 5 month long background check. I've got the letter in front of me, as I type. Don't accuse me of lying when you don't have a clue. Anything else?

I would be willing to bet any amount of money, and will email, or fax you a copy, if you are willing to make a bet that is worth my time.

Well, I had a secret clearance when I was in the service. You can blow about having a "very high level" of clearance all you want, the level of clearance you have just substantiates your background as 'normal'. I didn't say you lied, I actually alluded to my belief that you are full of it. The wheels of bureaucracy turn slow, so I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the certifying agency had a few other things they were trying to accomplish during the 5 month long background check.

[TheRealVille]

^ I don't need your opinion of how high my clearance is for federal buildings, I know. I thought you might back pedal. Yes, you said I didn't have federal clearance, it is there for all to see. You said I might have heard about the clearance process, but were confident I didn't have one. Feel free to get back to your lying.

[TheRealThing]

^ I don't need your opinion of how high my clearance is for federal buildings, I know. I thought you might back pedal. Yes, you said I didn't have federal clearance, it is there for all to see. You said I might have heard about the clearance process, but were confident I didn't have one. Feel free to get back to your lying.

I didn't back down one iota. A clearance to work on a project somewhere is routine since 9/11. Everybody gets a background check who works in Ashland Oil ref #1 or #2, for example. Totally no big deal. Very high level federal security clearance huh, I'll buy the 'very high' part, LOL. I noticed there is a James Bond 007 marathon going on today and tomorrow, you watching it?

[TheRealVille]

The same clearance to work ashland oil is very different. This is to work federal buildings, and very extensive, yes high level. More extensive than my nuclear Q clearance. Are you another know it all?

[TheRealThing]

The same clearance to work ashland oil is very different. This is to work federal buildings, and very extensive, yes high level. More extensive than my nuclear Q clearance. Are you another know it all?

Everybody that works construction at a nuclear facility or any other industrial setting which may tend to attract the eye of a terrorist, undergoes a background check. Case closed. Of course I don't know it all, but I was associated with nuclear construction, been there done that, what's the big deal? But to return to your assertion that began all this. NObody, but nobody, gets anything remotely close to a very high level federal security clearance with any dope in his system.

[TheRealVille]

^That should be a clue to you that there was none, then. 30 days isn't hard to accomplish during the process. And, I'm good for the next 5 years.

[TheRealVille]

^ Check this out, they let me go to the bathroom unattended also. It wouldn't had mattered if they did observe, but they didn't. I could have easily cheated. A Q clearance goes back only 5 years on checking you out. This was a very intensive 10 years back search. You can try to act like you know everything to do with this, but the more you type, the more ignorant you look.

[TheRealThing]

^ Check this out, they let me go to the bathroom unattended also. It wouldn't had mattered if they did observe, but they didn't. I could have easily cheated. A Q clearance goes back only 5 years on checking you out. This was a very intensive 10 years back search. You can try to act like you know everything to do with this, but the more you type, the more ignorant you look.

Thanks, that would be an insult coming from anybody but you. :biggrin:

[TheRealVille]

I find it funny how a lot of people preach about giving power back to the states, until they make decisions that don't agree with their view, then they are against it.

[Hoot Gibson]

I find it funny how a lot of people preach about giving power back to the states, until they make decisions that don't agree with their view, then they are against it.

Who has said that they oppose allowing states to make decisions regarding drug use? I find it funny that you interpret people's objections to a state law as being inconsistent with their desire to give power back to the states. It is easier for a citizen or group of citizens to influence state laws than it is for them to get a federal law changed.

There is no hypocrisy in the two positions. People who believe that states should have the powers reserved to them by the U.S. Constitution are not going to agree with every single state law. To think that they should is ridiculous.

[TheRealVille]

Who has said that they oppose allowing states to make decisions regarding drug use? I find it funny that you interpret people's objections to a state law as being inconsistent with their desire to give power back to the states. It is easier for a citizen or group of citizens to influence state laws than it is for them to get a federal law changed.

There is no hypocrisy in the two positions. People who believe that states should have the powers reserved to them by the U.S. Constitution are not going to agree with every single state law. To think that they should is ridiculous.

This isn't the only place I go to read, or the only people I talk to. I wonder if TRT, and a few others that have posted here would accept it being legal in Kentucky if the people voted for it? I'm pretty sure you would, but you are not the norm for Kentucky conservatives, on these type of issues.

[TheRealVille]

There you go again, RV. Talking about something you apparently know nothing about. The war on drugs has been a bipartisan effort. If you disagree, then lay it out for us. How did Republicans manage to wage a war on illegal drugs all by their lonesome. Before you start manufacturing more bogus facts, you might want to consider the real fact that Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for four full decades, which ended in 1994. Now let's hear how Republicans managed to pass laws against drug use without considerable help of Democrats over the years.

Do you read the nonsense that you post?

Where is the partisan in my post? I was talking about the older generation that thought up this drug war that isn't working. They think they know what's best for everybody, when it's obvious their way hasn't worked, and it's only getting worse. If weed had been legal for the last 50 years, it might be a safe bet that we wouldn't be dealing with a lot of other drug problems. But, I will interject a little partisan in, Nixon had a few studies kept hidden, and Ronald Reagan didn't help matters when he stepped up the fight.

[Hoot Gibson]

This isn't the only place I go to read, or the only people I talk to. I wonder if TRT, and a few others that have posted here would accept it being legal in Kentucky if the people voted for it? I'm pretty sure you would, but you are not the norm for Kentucky conservatives, on these type of issues.

I doubt that I would "accept" it if the people voted for it, because I doubt that legislators would include stiffer sentences for violent offenders and people committing crimes while under the influence of drugs. I am not in favor of simply opening jail cells and making drugs legal without reforming other laws. I am also opposed to the government forcing taxpayers to pay for the revolving door of drug addiction rehabilitation programs.

If drugs are going to be legalized, then the law needs to hold drug users accountable when they do not use them "responsibly," which I expect a large percentage will not.

[TheRealVille]

I doubt that I would "accept" it if the people voted for it, because I doubt that legislators would include stiffer sentences for violent offenders and people committing crimes while under the influence of drugs. I am not in favor of simply opening jail cells and making drugs legal without reforming other laws. I am also opposed to the government forcing taxpayers to pay for the revolving door of drug addiction rehabilitation programs.

If drugs are going to be legalized, then the law needs to hold drug users accountable when they do not use them "responsibly," which I expect a large percentage will not.

Right. But, with weed anyway, the proof that you have smoked stays in your system way longer than the "high". There would have to be a way to do away with urine test, and go to another type of test, like a mouth swab, that would get closer to the actual time you smoked. I don't know your experience with weed, but if someone is violent, it isn't because of weed. If they are violent, they are violent, but weed is a pacifier. You are more apt to be violent under the influence of alcohol.

Edit: There is no way to make them use weed responsibly if they aren't responsible type people, just look at alcohol. I will add, that if people aren't responsible, make them pay for their jail time. If they don't have the money, confiscate anything they have, sell it to pay the bill.

[Hoot Gibson]

Where is the partisan in my post? I was talking about the older generation that thought up this drug war that isn't working. They think they know what's best for everybody, when it's obvious their way hasn't worked, and it's only getting worse. If weed had been legal for the last 50 years, it might be a safe bet that we wouldn't be dealing with a lot of other drug problems. But, I will interject a little partisan in, Nixon had a few studies kept hidden, and Ronald Reagan didn't help matters when he stepped up the fight.

Are you kidding? Are you now claiming that "your type of guys' thinking" and your mention of only Nixon and Reagan are not references to Republicans or conservatives? (Nixon was not a conservatives, but liberals still like to characterize him that way.)

In the post below and others, you made it clear that you blame Republicans for the war on drugs. You were wrong, but it is a little late to deny that you gave Republicans the blame/credit for the war on drugs. You did and I pointed out that they lacked the majorities in Congress to have been solely responsible.

^ How has the Nixon, Reagan war on drugs worked out? Enlighten me how much better off we are with your type of guys' thinking?

[TheRealVille]

Are you kidding? Are you now claiming that "your type of guys' thinking" and your mention of only Nixon and Reagan are not references to Republicans or conservatives? (Nixon was not a conservatives, but liberals still like to characterize him that way.)

In the post below and others, you made it clear that you blame Republicans for the war on drugs. You were wrong, but it is a little late to deny that you gave Republicans the blame/credit for the war on drugs. You did and I pointed out that they lacked the majorities in Congress to have been solely responsible.

I named those two republicans because they were at the front of the war on drugs. The main point was that it came from that generation, and the "moral right", and the Nixon, Reagan type people that think they know better what people should do in their lives. It's a known fact that Nixon and Reagan were the leaders on the war on drugs. When I mentioned to TRT in the post you quote though, it was strictly for people like him that think they know best how people should live.

[Ballers]

That's fine. Good for you. But, let everybody else make their own choices.

Fine by me. If they want to smoke something that isnt good for them go for it.
Just not my thing. I guess you are one of those guys that likes to get stoned?:lame:

[TheRealVille]

Fine by me. If they want to smoke something that isnt good for them go for it.
Just not my thing. I guess you are one of those guys that likes to get stoned?:lame:

I never get stoned. Smokers on this board have stated as such, on this very thread. Why not live your life, mind your business, and let me and others live theirs? :Thumbs: Your little lame sign proves my point. People like you think you have the right to judge, and consider what's right, for what other people to do in their lives. If it's fine by you, why not shut up about it, and not offer an opinion on whether you think it's lame or not?

[WideRight05]

I never get stoned. Smokers on this board have stated as such, on this very thread. Why not live your life, mind your business, and let me and others live theirs? :Thumbs:

Why don't you tell that to Obama?

[TheRealVille]

Why don't you tell that to Obama?

Obama is all for you living your life the way you see fit. I don't see him telling you what church, or if, you have to go to. He's not bothering the weed states, that I've heard of. If you want an abortion, he won't stop you. If you're gay and marry, or live together, he's all for it. That's the democrat way. It's your boys that want to regulate morality.

[TheRealVille]

Fine by me. If they want to smoke something that isnt good for them go for it.
Just not my thing. I guess you are one of those guys that likes to get stoned?:lame:

Do you drink alcohol?

[WideRight05]

Obama is all for you living your life the way you see fit. I don't see him telling you what church, or if, you have to go to. He's not bothering the weed states, that I've heard of. If you want an abortion, he won't stop you. If you're gay and marry, or live together, he's all for it. That's the democrat way. It's your boys that want to regulate morality.

LOL, it's the democrats that get all butthurt and emotional about regulating morality. They claim to be "Christians," yet any mention of God or Jesus is an absolute no-no. Then, they are hell-bent on allowing females to go out, spread their legs, get pregnant, and have the baby chopped to pieces. They have no discipline or any regard for human life, and then want to shove their views down the throats of everybody - all in the name of "tolerance."