4/20 plans

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Nothing special. After work I'll be going to a baseball game. After that I'll probably head straight home and likely spend the rest of the evening by myself.

I had a baseball game too!  Although it got rained out.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't plan on smoking weed nor would I ever want to smoke weed.

The only proper response.

I hope you're going to be consistent with your anti-drug stance by not drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco either.

Perhapshis stance isn't anti-drug, but anti-illegal drug.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I was curious so I googled jenkem.  I wish I hadn't. 

Got 'em.

Why wouldn't you want to experience getting high, at least once? I can understand not wanting to use frequently but not wanting to experience the feeling at all? That's a strange sentiment to me.

Coz it's MIND ALTERING DeadFlagBlues. And alcohol isn't. Apparently.

When did he argue in favor of alcohol?

[Sbane]

I don't plan on smoking weed nor would I ever want to smoke weed.

The only proper response.

I hope you're going to be consistent with your anti-drug stance by not drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco either.

Perhapshis stance isn't anti-drug, but anti-illegal drug.

So why should weed be illegal and not tobacco or alcohol?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't plan on smoking weed nor would I ever want to smoke weed.

The only proper response.

I hope you're going to be consistent with your anti-drug stance by not drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco either.

Perhapshis stance isn't anti-drug, but anti-illegal drug.

So why should weed be illegal and not tobacco or alcohol?

I'm not saying it should.  But some people, such as myself, don't engage in smoking marijuana simply because it is illegal.

[Sbane]

I don't plan on smoking weed nor would I ever want to smoke weed.

The only proper response.

I hope you're going to be consistent with your anti-drug stance by not drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco either.

Perhapshis stance isn't anti-drug, but anti-illegal drug.

So why should weed be illegal and not tobacco or alcohol?

I'm not saying it should.  But some people, such as myself, don't engage in smoking marijuana simply because it is illegal.

Well there's a difference between not doing something because it is illegal and the consequences of that, and actually being against it like "anti illegal drug" implies. Even ignoring the greater rates of use, alcohol and arguably tobacco, cause greater harm to individuals and society.

[fezzyfestoon]

I love how seriously non-smokers take the issue of smoking. It just makes it that much more obvious that they've never smoked. It's like a virgin devoting his life to the cause of abstinence and expecting to be taken seriously.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I love how seriously non-smokers take the issue of smoking. It just makes it that much more obvious that they've never smoked. It's like a virgin devoting his life to the cause of abstinence and expecting to be taken seriously.

Forgive me if I don't understand why exactly either of these are illegitimate or unserious things to do, theoretically speaking.

[fezzyfestoon]

I love how seriously non-smokers take the issue of smoking. It just makes it that much more obvious that they've never smoked. It's like a virgin devoting his life to the cause of abstinence and expecting to be taken seriously.

Forgive me if I don't understand why exactly either of these are illegitimate or unserious things to do, theoretically speaking.

It makes objectivity impossible. Shouldn't the most trusted people on an issue be those with the most experience with it?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I love how seriously non-smokers take the issue of smoking. It just makes it that much more obvious that they've never smoked. It's like a virgin devoting his life to the cause of abstinence and expecting to be taken seriously.

Forgive me if I don't understand why exactly either of these are illegitimate or unserious things to do, theoretically speaking.

It makes objectivity impossible. Shouldn't the most trusted people on an issue be those with the most experience with it?

That also makes objectivity impossible. Who has more experience with abstinence than virgins, or with not smoking than non-smokers? There's no 'objective' level of experience to have had. It all depends on what one frames as the positive assertion of a position that needs to be defended.

[Oakvale]

I love how seriously non-smokers take the issue of smoking. It just makes it that much more obvious that they've never smoked. It's like a virgin devoting his life to the cause of abstinence and expecting to be taken seriously.

Yeah, I mean, I don't really care if someone never wants to smoke (or drink, or whatever), but I don't understand why you wouldn't even want to try it. You've only got one life, and there'll be plenty of time to be a prude when you're older, guys.

[fezzyfestoon]

I love how seriously non-smokers take the issue of smoking. It just makes it that much more obvious that they've never smoked. It's like a virgin devoting his life to the cause of abstinence and expecting to be taken seriously.

Forgive me if I don't understand why exactly either of these are illegitimate or unserious things to do, theoretically speaking.

It makes objectivity impossible. Shouldn't the most trusted people on an issue be those with the most experience with it?

That also makes objectivity impossible. Who has more experience with abstinence than virgins, or with not smoking than non-smokers? There's no 'objective' level of experience to have had. It all depends on what one frames as the positive assertion of a position that needs to be defended.

No, I disagree. Having sex or being high are very temporary conditions. Virginity and never having smoked are permanent, uninterrupted states. Despite the cultural stigmas, having achieved an altered mental state is not a permanent, constant state of being. It's just another experience. It's absurd to contest that the absence of experience is the basis of the most informed opinions.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't plan on smoking weed nor would I ever want to smoke weed.

The only proper response.

I hope you're going to be consistent with your anti-drug stance by not drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco either.

Perhapshis stance isn't anti-drug, but anti-illegal drug.

So why should weed be illegal and not tobacco or alcohol?

I'm not saying it should.  But some people, such as myself, don't engage in smoking marijuana simply because it is illegal.

Well there's a difference between not doing something because it is illegal and the consequences of that, and actually being against it like "anti illegal drug" implies. Even ignoring the greater rates of use, alcohol and arguably tobacco, cause greater harm to individuals and society.

I'm not disputing any of that.  I'm merely pointing out that opposition to marijuana doesn't by default mean someone has an "anti-drug stance".

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Perhaps his stance isn't anti-drug, but anti-illegal drug.

No, it's all drugs.

[Oakvale]

Perhaps his stance isn't anti-drug, but anti-illegal drug.

No, it's all drugs.

Why? I'm curious.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Perhaps his stance isn't anti-drug, but anti-illegal drug.

No, it's all drugs.

Again.  I wasn't speaking on what you do or don't believe - merely pointing out that the logical end to opposition of marijuana doesn't necessarily mean being against alcohol / tobacco.

But, out of curiousity, what do you definas "all drugs"?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I love how seriously non-smokers take the issue of smoking. It just makes it that much more obvious that they've never smoked. It's like a virgin devoting his life to the cause of abstinence and expecting to be taken seriously.

Forgive me if I don't understand why exactly either of these are illegitimate or unserious things to do, theoretically speaking.

It makes objectivity impossible. Shouldn't the most trusted people on an issue be those with the most experience with it?

That also makes objectivity impossible. Who has more experience with abstinence than virgins, or with not smoking than non-smokers? There's no 'objective' level of experience to have had. It all depends on what one frames as the positive assertion of a position that needs to be defended.

No, I disagree. Having sex or being high are very temporary conditions. Virginity and never having smoked are permanent, uninterrupted states. Despite the cultural stigmas, having achieved an altered mental state is not a permanent, constant state of being. It's just another experience. It's absurd to contest that the absence of experience is the basis of the most informed opinions.

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I don't believe there is any level of experience that would tender objective opinions about these things using your definition. I also happen to think past experiences of any kind change the nature of future experiences, which, again, I'm not limiting to these particular issues. I can understand the value of experience if we are looking for maximally informed positions but I simply don't think unexperienced people's positions should be thought to be less objective, particularly if they ostensibly derive from first principles. (Deriving opinions on very specific issues from first principles can be suspect for other reasons, of course, but I don't believe that's especially relevant here.)

Would an ideal observer be infinitely experienced, and if so, is that simply necessary to achieve infinite understanding (which I am not convinced of, by the by) or is it itself intrinsically important?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Contrary to popular belief I don't get high a whole lot (I post about it a lot more than I actually do it), but I suspect the pot users mocking the anti-pot people comes from frustration at unfair demonization and the idiotic view of the law resulting in some backlash. I mean even ignoring the law you can't say that there aren't people who unfairly look down on pot users and see themselves as superior for not doing so, try reading any Naso post on the subject.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Contrary to popular belief I don't get high a whole lot (I post about it a lot more than I actually do it), but I suspect the pot users mocking the anti-pot people comes from frustration at unfair demonization and the idiotic view of the law resulting in some backlash. I mean even ignoring the law you can't say that there aren't people who unfairly look down on pot users and see themselves as superior for not doing so, try reading any Naso post on the subject.

Certainly. It's incredibly stupid that cannabis is listed and treated the way it is, particularly considering what's going on in producing communities and producing countries. Users have actually a lot of privilege, relative to producers and (in some ways) traffickers, which is why I think of legalization as primarily an issue of economic marginalization.

[Bacon King]

Didn't do anything for the twentieth, unfortunately, as I was bedridden with the flu.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Why? I'm curious.

It's not a moral objection; I don't see the benefit to any of them, given that they all have potentially nasty side effects.

But, out of curiousity, what do you definas "all drugs"?

All illegal drugs, plus alcohol and tobacco.  While I don't include painkillers, I certainly have a problem with becoming dependent on them.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Well that's at least more consistent than Naso.

[Oakvale]

Why? I'm curious.

It's not a moral objection; I don't see the benefit to any of them, given that they all have potentially nasty side effects.

But, out of curiousity, what do you definas "all drugs"?

All illegal drugs, plus alcohol and tobacco.  While I don't include painkillers, I certainly have a problem with becoming dependent on them.

Oh, okay - thanks for humouring me. Like I said, I don't really understand it, but I can certainly respect that.

[Tender Branson]

I know this is not the meaning of "4/20", but the only thing I think of for 4/20/12 is the 13th anniversary of the Columbine School Shootings.

[Keystone Phil]

Where is the prudery? Some - no, most - people simply don't want to smoke. It's "self righteous" when we look down on people that do but it's ok if the non-smokers are mocked for not "allowing themselves to get high?" And we have to explain to you why we don't want to get high? So my values have to meet yours or at least be explained because they're so "strange?" And I'm self righteous? Please.

No, we just don't need lectures about what we choose to do with our lives. If you don't smoke, good for you. Makes no difference to me.

But then again, you vote Santorum so I suppose other people's personal lives are a matter of great importance for you.

...and if you actually bothered to read some of the posts here and my response, you'll see that non-smokers are getting something like a lecture on how we ought to get high or at least explain our "strange" feelings against it. That is telling me what to do with my life but I know it's easier to avoid that so you can make a predictable but seriously reaching Santorum comment.

No-one is telling you to get high if you don't want to. Unlike the people you support, we respect yr. right to choose. Just don't come into this thread and act morally superior to us.

For about the third time now (your reading comprehension skills are seriously lacking), I am pointing out that the self righteous are telling us that we should at least explain why because our "strange" values don't make sense to them. That's someone getting on their high horse so knock off your hypocritical routine of whining about the people I support when you act just as morally superior.