-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Drugs: Virtually legal | The Economist
- Thread starter !!!
- Start date
B
Blue Dot
That's not how it was sold to me and not why I voted for it.
So Keith Stroup thinks sick people are just pawns in a bigger game of legalization?
Well at least I know now that he's a guy I'll never want to smoke a joint with.
Blue Dot,
Not everything you post in this sub-forum is necessarily incorrect or baseless (although the above part certainly was both). While I don't usually agree with your views, at least I can see where much of it is coming from.
But this? This is just trolling now. Deliberate, premeditated trolling.
You issues bro. You think you hold a moral high ground, but you're filled with hate and contempt. I can almost feel your negative energy through the computer. Miserable vibes.
On topic. Articles like this just confirm the inevitability of rational drug policies forthcoming sooner rather than later. Each article and news clipping that spurs logical conversation among the masses is a move in the right direction for all of us.
E
elmanito
Its typical that the Netherlands puts more people in jail for drug offends than the rest of the EU.
Namaste
Drugs: Virtually legal | The Economist
This is a really good read! http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14845095
This is my favorite excerpt.
This is a really good read! http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14845095
This is my favorite excerpt.
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14845095 said:
Goddammit, this man needs to be taken out back and have the tar beaten out of him. Goddam fucking asshole fucked the movement in 1978 tooting lines of coke-aine in the White House, and now he's feeding more ammunition to the prohibitionists when we've got them on the run. They already quote Dick Cowan out of context when he made somewhat similar statements in 1993, now they have a recent quote that they don't even need to take out of context. Somebody please strangle Mr. Stroup man and leave his body to rot by the side of the road.
Fuck you Mr. Stroup! You are a total fucking asshole!
nm. IC Mag double posting and posting stuff out of order.
Last edited:
B
Blue Dot
Then maybe you missed the whole point of 215.
It wasn't to further Keith Stroups agenda of full legalization I can tell you that.
just because you believe in 215 because of what it does for patient's rights, doesn't negate the fact that its implications serve a much wider group of people. Progress is progress. The CUA gets us closer to legalization...
Let's say that a bill was passed called the "Right to Plant Act". It makes it illegal to ban the growing of any kind of plant, patent the genes of plants, save seed, etc but did not explicitly legalize the medicinal use of marijuana (or cocaine for that matter.) Patients in need start using the RtPA as a shield for their cultivation and use of cannabis, because the wording of the law allows for a wide interpretation. Would you bitch and moan that this wasn't the "whole point" of the bill or would you just celebrate the fact that patients were gaining access to the medicine they need without fear of prosecution?
B
Blue Dot
What "implications'? You mean the implications you force on it?
215 was for "seriously ill californians".
Where do you derive "recreational legalization" from that?
When all this is revisited in history, Prop 215 will be looked at as the first stepping stone towards legalization. Historical implications always exist in bills, you just don't recognize them until later. Do you even know what an implication is?
B
Blue Dot
It's already "decriminalized" in cali. I guess that's an implication towards legalization.
answer the question in the second paragraph. would you offer the same argument if it were patients who forced their implications on a law with a different intent?
note: you will have to get down from your moral high horse to answer the question honestly. who wants to bet that you are incapable?
note: you will have to get down from your moral high horse to answer the question honestly. who wants to bet that you are incapable?
If it wasn't legalization then the opponents of 215 including the former Attorney General who is now a congressman shouldn't have said so on official ballot materials.
But yeah Stroup did fuck Cannabis over in 78 by taking pics of the drug czar doing coke, when the drug czar was going to end cannabis prohibition.
So why did you choose today to becoime an ignorant asshole? Why in the world would ytou support
Please don't buttonhole me with BD. I'm not pushing the same bullshit about the 'intent' of 215 and his misplaced perception of such. But reality is that the prohibitionists have been squawking repeatedly that medical is a fraud to promote legalization, and here come Mr. Kieth Stroup whose name is known as synonymous with legalization, and known by all the former heads of the '70 who might just decide to take the prohibitionist rhetoric when this gets around, and it will be promoted by the prohibitionists.
Fuck you kaotic, you're a fucking idiot if you think this is anything but ill advised rhetoric that Mr. Stroup should have had the sense to keep to himself.
dickhead said:
Have nothing intelligent to say?
dickhead said:
Pot calling kettle black. If your going to come at me like this please make some sense. I have good reading comprehension but this is pushing it. At least finish your sentences.
dickhead said:
He might have fucked up but he's done more for the movement than you could ever even think about doing. You describe yourself perfectly btw, "Troll on Patrol." Pffft.
ok, you win. Happy now?
