Romney on Pot

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

"I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”

There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?

(eye roll)"

I never siad anything about personal use, or smoking pot myself.

"dk44 wrote:
you’re either for smaller govt, or you’re not. this “drug war” is nothing but more govt in your life.

Yes, it is but it’s so much more than that isn’t it?

THINK"

Here’s dodging a question

ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:

So according to Romney cancer patients should use much more expensive and addictive pain meds or synthetic marijuana which happens to have a shit ton of negative side effects rather than marijuana. How is this asshole the republican nominee.

I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”

There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?

(eye roll)

Yes, but they are more expensive and therefore inaccessible to people that aren’t as filthy, stinking rich as romonid - and that is the bigger issue.

Pot is a cheap alternative to deal with the side effects of cancer medications…you do know that don’t you…you patronizing SOB.

"Absolute nonsense! I had a friend who had cancer and he was not wealthy yet had the opportunity to take every imaginable cancer drug that there was. He never “needed” or asked for pot.

This is just one more (really lousy) excuse for those who smoke pot to rationalize it’s legalization. Very transparent and not at all necessary.

Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”

Is that so hard?

The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance…

Au contraire"

Ignoring posts that discount yours

" DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?

Better ones? according to whom? You, Doctors, or people who actually have cancer? Who do you think should get to make the choice about which one works best?

It seems that I’ve had this conversation just a little while ago. The claim was made that pot worked better than the many other cancer drugs. And when I asked the poster to produce the evidence well…he just couldn’t do it.

Maybe you can do it? Can you? I really would love to see all of the peer reviewed studies which conclusively prove that pot is better all of what we now have available. It sure would make a believer out of me.

After all I can say that pink mushrooms are good for cancer. But maybe I just like to eat pink mushrooms.

Give me the evidence or just say you want pot legalized because you like it.

Simple huh?"

No one claimed that, the only claim made in this thread is that pot is a good alternative and Romney wants to restrict it.

Need i go on

142

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
It must be lonely at the nursing home.

And i was referring to your willful ignorance of counterpoints. Im surprised you like Lee Atwater he did smoke pot after all.[/quote]

I’ve responded to everything that’s been posted. If you have an argument of your own however I’d be happy to engage.

Is that what you want?

Post away junior.[/quote]

Do you think it is okay to lock people in jail for doing drugs?[/quote]

You’d have to refine your question.[/quote]

Avoiding the question again.[/quote]

Try really hard to focus:

  1. I am asking for a more specific question so that I will be able to give an intelligent answer. An intelligent answer, something alien to you.

  2. You were to bring me an example of where I “put words in people’s mouths.” When you make asinine accusations you have to be ready to be called out on them.

Now run along and finish your assignment. Unless you want to either apologize for lying right now, or do what most do when they have nothing to back up the bluster…drop from the thread.

143

Starting out with an ad hominem btw is not something someone with a well thought out argument does.

144

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
It must be lonely at the nursing home.

And i was referring to your willful ignorance of counterpoints. Im surprised you like Lee Atwater he did smoke pot after all.[/quote]

I’ve responded to everything that’s been posted. If you have an argument of your own however I’d be happy to engage.

Is that what you want?

Post away junior.[/quote]

Do you think it is okay to lock people in jail for doing drugs?[/quote]

You’d have to refine your question.[/quote]

Avoiding the question again.[/quote]

Try really hard to focus:

  1. I am asking for a more specific question so that I will be able to give an intelligent answer. An intelligent answer, something alien to you.

  2. You were to bring me an example of where I “put words in people’s mouths.” When you make asinine accusations you have to be ready to be called out on them.

Now run along and finish your assignment. Unless you want to either apologize for lying right now, or do what most do when they have nothing to back up the bluster…drop from the thread.

[/quote]

Fuck, you must be blind to miss my post.

145

When did i lie id welcome someone to point out that post.

146

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
"I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”

There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?

(eye roll)"

I never siad anything about personal use, or smoking pot myself.[/quote]

That was saracasm simpleton.

[quote]"dk44 wrote:
you’re either for smaller govt, or you’re not. this “drug war” is nothing but more govt in your life.

Yes, it is but it’s so much more than that isn’t it?

THINK"[/quote]

Never put any words in the posters mouth.

[quote]Here’s dodging a question

ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:

So according to Romney cancer patients should use much more expensive and addictive pain meds or synthetic marijuana which happens to have a shit ton of negative side effects rather than marijuana. How is this asshole the republican nominee.

I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”

There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?

(eye roll)[/quote]

I responded by talking about better alternatives to pot use. (Just exactly how dumb are you?)

[quote]Yes, but they are more expensive and therefore inaccessible to people that aren’t as filthy, stinking rich as romonid - and that is the bigger issue.

Pot is a cheap alternative to deal with the side effects of cancer medications…you do know that don’t you…you patronizing SOB.

"Absolute nonsense! I had a friend who had cancer and he was not wealthy yet had the opportunity to take every imaginable cancer drug that there was. He never “needed” or asked for pot.

This is just one more (really lousy) excuse for those who smoke pot to rationalize it’s legalization. Very transparent and not at all necessary.

Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”

Is that so hard?[/quote]

This too was responded to properly and completely!

[quote]The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance…

Au contraire"

Ignoring posts that discount yours

" DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?

Better ones? according to whom? You, Doctors, or people who actually have cancer? Who do you think should get to make the choice about which one works best?

It seems that I’ve had this conversation just a little while ago. The claim was made that pot worked better than the many other cancer drugs. And when I asked the poster to produce the evidence well…he just couldn’t do it.

Maybe you can do it? Can you? I really would love to see all of the peer reviewed studies which conclusively prove that pot is better all of what we now have available. It sure would make a believer out of me.

After all I can say that pink mushrooms are good for cancer. But maybe I just like to eat pink mushrooms.

Give me the evidence or just say you want pot legalized because you like it.

Simple huh?"

No one claimed that, the only claim made in this thread is that pot is a good alternative and Romney wants to restrict it.

Need i go on[/quote]

Wow…no don’t go on you are wasting my time and the time of anyone who has engaged this thread for serious conversation. In short you are an idiot. To quickly summarize the poster above claimed that it should be left up to the patient and my response is that we need justification in the form of actual research that determines the best drug that fits the disease. You are making me pine away for the the days when the pro legalization crowds best argument was “it’s a plant maaaaan.”

Go away junior you are playing out of your league and it shows.

147

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
Starting out with an ad hominem btw is not something someone with a well thought out argument does.[/quote]

How do you even know what a well thought out argument looks like? You’ve not had one on this thread.

148

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
When did i lie id welcome someone to point out that post.[/quote]

Claiming that I “put words in people’s mouths” knit wit.

149

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]optheta wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

The notion that unhealthy things should be criminalized because they are bad for you is pretty much both the dumbest and most ultra-big government belief there is.[/quote]

/End Thread.[/quote]

I would say that’s a pretty glib paraphrase

As for legalising cannabis, I am unsure. A lot of my friends who take it tell me it’s a wonder drug, as they would. I hear it’s very good for people who have debilitating illnesses, notably multiple sclerosis. I would welcome studies showing the effectiveness of this. If it is effective, and cheaper and better than other drugs, I would be happy to see it medically prescribed to people suffering debilitating illnesses. I wonder if that would mean a ‘free for all’ however.[/quote]

No no-knock raids.

No rampant asset forfeiture.

No more 20lbs dogs dying that threatened officers in full battle rattle.

No more lifes ruined, no more ever expanding prison costs, cops doing actually police work…

150

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:
You think it is worse for a society to allow a plant, than to lock people up for a plant. Crazy.[/quote]

Should opium be legal as well it’s only a plant? And every other drug such as cocaine that is derived from a natural source?

If your argument is correct and it’s only a plant then these too are only plants tell me why should be decriminalized.

Says the guy whose only argument is “it’s just a plant maaaan…”
[/quote]

I think it should all be legalized, govt has no business telling you what you can/can’t consume. Do you need govt to tell you not to drink Drain-O. Why do you need a Nanny? Can you make your own decisions? And if you won’t legalize it, at least stop throwing people in jail for it. [/quote]

Hypothetically, what if a small, but significant percentage of the 18-35 population were?[/quote]

Sounds like a self correcting problem to me.

151

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
"I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”

There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?

(eye roll)"

I never siad anything about personal use, or smoking pot myself.[/quote]

That was saracasm simpleton.

No thats putting word in someones mouth.

[quote]"dk44 wrote:
you’re either for smaller govt, or you’re not. this “drug war” is nothing but more govt in your life.

Yes, it is but it’s so much more than that isn’t it?

THINK"[/quote]

Never put any words in the posters mouth.

Thats avoiding the question. i guess thats shitty reading comprehension on top of avoidance

[quote]Here’s dodging a question

ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:

So according to Romney cancer patients should use much more expensive and addictive pain meds or synthetic marijuana which happens to have a shit ton of negative side effects rather than marijuana. How is this asshole the republican nominee.

I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”

There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?

(eye roll)[/quote]

I responded by talking about better alternatives to pot use. (Just exactly how dumb are you?)

[quote]Yes, but they are more expensive and therefore inaccessible to people that aren’t as filthy, stinking rich as romonid - and that is the bigger issue.

Pot is a cheap alternative to deal with the side effects of cancer medications…you do know that don’t you…you patronizing SOB.

"Absolute nonsense! I had a friend who had cancer and he was not wealthy yet had the opportunity to take every imaginable cancer drug that there was. He never “needed” or asked for pot.

This is just one more (really lousy) excuse for those who smoke pot to rationalize it’s legalization. Very transparent and not at all necessary.

Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”

Is that so hard?[/quote]

This too was responded to properly and completely!

[quote]The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance…

Au contraire"

Ignoring posts that discount yours

" DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?

Better ones? according to whom? You, Doctors, or people who actually have cancer? Who do you think should get to make the choice about which one works best?

It seems that I’ve had this conversation just a little while ago. The claim was made that pot worked better than the many other cancer drugs. And when I asked the poster to produce the evidence well…he just couldn’t do it.

Maybe you can do it? Can you? I really would love to see all of the peer reviewed studies which conclusively prove that pot is better all of what we now have available. It sure would make a believer out of me.

After all I can say that pink mushrooms are good for cancer. But maybe I just like to eat pink mushrooms.

Give me the evidence or just say you want pot legalized because you like it.

Simple huh?"

No one claimed that, the only claim made in this thread is that pot is a good alternative and Romney wants to restrict it.

Need i go on[/quote]

Wow…no don’t go on you are wasting my time and the time of anyone who has engaged this thread for serious conversation. In short you are an idiot. To quickly summarize the poster above claimed that it should be left up to the patient and my response is that we need justification in the form of actual research that determines the best drug that fits the disease. You are making me pine away for the the days when the pro legalization crowds best argument was “it’s a plant maaaaan.”

Yet your responding, am i getting to you old man pointing out your ignorance.

Go away junior you are playing out of your league and it shows.[/quote]

I suppose theres no fool, like an old fool.

152

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
When did i lie id welcome someone to point out that post.[/quote]

Claiming that I “put words in people’s mouths” knit wit.[/quote]

Which you did. If you don’t want it pointed out don’t do it.

153

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
When did i lie id welcome someone to point out that post.[/quote]

Claiming that I “put words in people’s mouths” knit wit.[/quote]

Which you did. If you don’t want it pointed out don’t do it.[/quote]

Somewhat relevant:

â??A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. â??
â?? Max Planck

154

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
When did i lie id welcome someone to point out that post.[/quote]

Claiming that I “put words in people’s mouths” knit wit.[/quote]

Which you did. If you don’t want it pointed out don’t do it.[/quote]

Somewhat relevant:

â??A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. â??
â?? Max Planck [/quote]
“Science advances one funeral at a time”-Max Planck

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.

155

Why has Zeb still not answered the question? If he is against Marijuana due to health. What about alcohol, cigarettes, sugar, caffeine?

156

606×612 64.7 KB

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:
You think it is worse for a society to allow a plant, than to lock people up for a plant. Crazy.[/quote]

Should opium be legal as well it’s only a plant? And every other drug such as cocaine that is derived from a natural source?

If your argument is correct and it’s only a plant then these too are only plants tell me why should be decriminalized.

Says the guy whose only argument is “it’s just a plant maaaan…”
[/quote]

I think it should all be legalized, govt has no business telling you what you can/can’t consume. Do you need govt to tell you not to drink Drain-O. Why do you need a Nanny? Can you make your own decisions? And if you won’t legalize it, at least stop throwing people in jail for it. [/quote]

Hypothetically, what if a small, but significant percentage of the 18-35 population were?[/quote]

Sounds like a self correcting problem to me. [/quote]

Ha!

157

[quote]maverick88 wrote:
Why has Zeb still not answered the question? If he is against Marijuana due to health. What about alcohol, cigarettes, sugar, caffeine?[/quote]

He can only attack(poorly i might add), he cant debate. He will most likely wait until that issue is buried before posting again or avoid it completely.

158

[quote]maverick88 wrote:
Why has Zeb still not answered the question? If he is against Marijuana due to health. What about alcohol, cigarettes, sugar, caffeine?[/quote]

Sorry thought I did answer it. There was a lot of fast and furious posting going on.

Anyway, I am personally opposed to the use of those things. While alcohol is good for the heart (some research suggests) it is absolutely bad for the liver. And nothing has to be said about cigarettes that one is obvious. Maybe there’s something inherently bad about sucking smoke into your lungs huh? I rarely touch sugar I’ve been a natural food guy for a long time.

How about you maverick?

159

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
"I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”

There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?

(eye roll)"

I never siad anything about personal use, or smoking pot myself.[/quote]

That was saracasm simpleton.

No thats putting word in someones mouth.

[quote]"dk44 wrote:
you’re either for smaller govt, or you’re not. this “drug war” is nothing but more govt in your life.

Yes, it is but it’s so much more than that isn’t it?

THINK"[/quote]

Never put any words in the posters mouth.

Thats avoiding the question. i guess thats shitty reading comprehension on top of avoidance

[quote]Here’s dodging a question

ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:

So according to Romney cancer patients should use much more expensive and addictive pain meds or synthetic marijuana which happens to have a shit ton of negative side effects rather than marijuana. How is this asshole the republican nominee.

I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”

There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?

(eye roll)[/quote]

I responded by talking about better alternatives to pot use. (Just exactly how dumb are you?)

[quote]Yes, but they are more expensive and therefore inaccessible to people that aren’t as filthy, stinking rich as romonid - and that is the bigger issue.

Pot is a cheap alternative to deal with the side effects of cancer medications…you do know that don’t you…you patronizing SOB.

"Absolute nonsense! I had a friend who had cancer and he was not wealthy yet had the opportunity to take every imaginable cancer drug that there was. He never “needed” or asked for pot.

This is just one more (really lousy) excuse for those who smoke pot to rationalize it’s legalization. Very transparent and not at all necessary.

Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”

Is that so hard?[/quote]

This too was responded to properly and completely!

[quote]The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance…

Au contraire"

Ignoring posts that discount yours

" DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?

Better ones? according to whom? You, Doctors, or people who actually have cancer? Who do you think should get to make the choice about which one works best?

It seems that I’ve had this conversation just a little while ago. The claim was made that pot worked better than the many other cancer drugs. And when I asked the poster to produce the evidence well…he just couldn’t do it.

Maybe you can do it? Can you? I really would love to see all of the peer reviewed studies which conclusively prove that pot is better all of what we now have available. It sure would make a believer out of me.

After all I can say that pink mushrooms are good for cancer. But maybe I just like to eat pink mushrooms.

Give me the evidence or just say you want pot legalized because you like it.

Simple huh?"

No one claimed that, the only claim made in this thread is that pot is a good alternative and Romney wants to restrict it.

Need i go on[/quote]

Wow…no don’t go on you are wasting my time and the time of anyone who has engaged this thread for serious conversation. In short you are an idiot. To quickly summarize the poster above claimed that it should be left up to the patient and my response is that we need justification in the form of actual research that determines the best drug that fits the disease. You are making me pine away for the the days when the pro legalization crowds best argument was “it’s a plant maaaaan.”

Yet your responding, am i getting to you old man pointing out your ignorance.

Go away junior you are playing out of your league and it shows.[/quote]

I suppose theres no fool, like an old fool.[/quote]

Or like an uneducated idiot.

(I know you have a difficult time with even the not so subtle comment so to be sure I am referring to you)

160

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
When did i lie id welcome someone to point out that post.[/quote]

Claiming that I “put words in people’s mouths” knit wit.[/quote]

Which you did. If you don’t want it pointed out don’t do it.[/quote]

I have successfully refuted your ridiculous claims moron.