Michael Phelps, hypocrisy and American Drug Policy

Originally posted by keeb333
Ok, then, that leaves us with the legal question. Were their lives ruined because of the legal status of this plant (i.e., getting busted and the repercussions from that)?

I've already answered this question. This repetition, grossly wrong assumptions about my family and guessing games are without point nor validity.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by saint4God]

The reason celebrities and athletes never get in trouble for smoking pot is simple.

It's because the PTB know that if they locked up a cultural icon for something as asinine as smoking a bowl, the public would raise hell.

I blame the public. They'll raise hell to defend their heroes, but sit idly by while tens of thousands of their countrymen get locked away for a victimless crime.

The real heroes and martyrs in the drug war are the thousands of nonviolent "Joe the stoner"s in jail.

If we treated these nonviolent prisoners like the martyrs we would make out of incarcerated celebrities, marijuana would be legalized in a hurry.

[edit on 2/13/2009 by nasdack24k]

reply to post by saint4God


Hey, I'm sorry if I missed the answer to this already. This has been a long thread and I've tried to keep up as best I can. I am not trying to change your mind, as it is obviously made up. I just want to understand WHY you feel the way you do so strongly.

If something helps millions of people, but is deadly to a few, should it be banned from everybody? If so, we need to pull all peanut or wheat gluten-containing products from the shelves immediately before someone who is allergic comes into contact with them and is harmed!

Just let it go, you aren't going to change any ones opinions on a subject if their minds are already made up, no matter how many facts you throw at them. They will hold onto their beliefs for as long as they need them. When its time to grow and they become impeded by them, they will let go.
Just as we all should.

peace
Mcmatthews

Originally posted by keeb333
I just want to understand WHY you feel the way you do so strongly.

Simply put, I love my family. It hurts to see them fall.

Originally posted by keeb333
If something helps millions of people, but is deadly to a few, should it be banned from everybody? If so, we need to pull all peanut or wheat gluten-containing products from the shelves immediately before someone who is allergic comes into contact with them and is harmed!

Apples to oranges comparison, though am confident you already know this. FYI, there have been several recalls for peanut containing products within the last year (Peter Pan was 'banned from everybody' for quite some time). In addition by federal regulation all peanut containing products must have posted a warning for those who are allergic. Again, all stuff you likely know.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by saint4God]

Apples to oranges comparison, though am confident you already know this. FYI, there have been several recalls for peanut containing products within the last year (Peter Pan was 'banned from everybody' for quite some time). In addition by federal regulation all peanut containing products must have posted a warning for those who are allergic. Again, all stuff you likely know.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by saint4God]

those peanut products were recalled for salmonella though right? not because peanuts themselves pose any threat...

In light of the fact that cannabis use has never directly resulted in someone's death, how exactly is this an apples to oranges comparison?

I think it's funny, well not haha funny though, that he apologized for an error in judgement like it was the first and last time he'd ever do that. Probably 80 percent of Americans between the ages of 13 and 30 are pot smokers now. I'm not advocating it either, I think it has had adverse results.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by keeb333
I just want to understand WHY you feel the way you do so strongly.

Simply put, I love my family. It hurts to see them fall.

So, if I may ask, what do you mean exactly by "fall"? What happens when this person smokes? Does he/she act differently? How, exactly? If so, it's not the MJ per so, but an underlying brain chemistry issue and the person should probably NOT be smoking (as I said before it's not for everyone).

Originally posted by keeb333
If something helps millions of people, but is deadly to a few, should it be banned from everybody? If so, we need to pull all peanut or wheat gluten-containing products from the shelves immediately before someone who is allergic comes into contact with them and is harmed!

Apples to oranges comparison, though am confident you already know this. FYI, there have been several recalls for peanut containing products within the last year. In addition by federal regulation all peanut containing products must have posted a warning for those who are allergic. Again, all stuff you likely know.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by saint4God]

I mentioned peanuts purposefully because they have been in the news lately, but the same reasoning could apply to any substance harmful to a small minority of people yet harmless to the general public. It is NOT an apples to oranges comparison, despite your attempt to dismiss it as such.

Fact: Some people are harmed by peanuts.
Fact: Most people are not harmed by peanuts.
Fallacy: Since some people are harmed by peanuts, we need to protect everyone from their dangerous influence, therefore peanuts should be banned.

See how ridiculous this is? Yet, replace peanuts with MJ, and you get the current state of our laws. However, replace peanuts with alcohol, and you get the opposite!

It was completely irrrational, arbitrary, and ignorant for Congress to ban MJ in the early part of this century, based soley on racist FUD. And today, many otherwise normal people are considered criminals because of this ignorance.

Well, this is the place to deny ignorance. Here's your chance!

Originally posted by keeb333
So, if I may ask, what do you mean exactly by "fall"?

Already discussed.

Originally posted by keeb333
What happens when this person smokes?

Already discussed.

Originally posted by keeb333
Does he/she act differently?

Of course.

Originally posted by keeb333
How, exactly?

Already discussed.

Originally posted by keeb333
I mentioned peanuts purposefully because they have been in the news lately,

Figured that, it would be imporbable of cosmic proportions to mention it otherwise.

Originally posted by keeb333
but the same reasoning could apply to any substance harmful to a small minority of people yet harmless to the general public. It is NOT an apples to oranges comparison, despite your attempt to dismiss it as such.

Yes it is, but again, you know this.

Originally posted by keeb333
See how ridiculous this is?

I see how ridiculous your comparison is. There's no point bickering with "yes it is" and "no it isn't" arguing which again is something I've mentioned before.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by saint4God]

Multi-post error.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by saint4God]

Multi-post error.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by saint4God]

Multi-post error.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by saint4God]

Multi-post error.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by saint4God]

Multi-post error.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by saint4God]

Multi-post error.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by saint4God]

Multi-post error.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by saint4God]

Multi-post error.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by saint4God]

Multi-post error.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by saint4God]

Multi-post error.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by saint4God]

reply to post by saint4God

But its not apples to oranges.

It's more like apples to apples that get you high.

the thing is, no matter how you look at it, apples are not harmful to the non-apple-allergic vast majority of people

[edit on 2/13/2009 by nasdack24k]