Retribution

[quote name='Aceburner']Mike Huckabee, who I should do more research on. [...] In closing, Chuck Norris for President.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Chuck endorses Huckabee. [url][B]http://youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8[/B][/url] To his credit, it's a great commercial.[/font]

[quote name='DeathKnight'][color=crimson]I would personally vote for, in order, Obama > Edwards > Paul > Clinton > Giuliani > Romney/Huckabee.[/color][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I agree, with the sole exception of Paul. While he and I agree on foreign policy to a fair extent, I cannot support a candidate so conservative in terms of social liberty. I mean, [url=http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm][color=red]read it for yourself[/color][/url]. And I find this funny, considering he's a libertarian.[/font]

[quote name='Sandy']I find the Democratic top candidates very intriguing, as well. A black muslim against a former first lady... If either one of them is ultimately elected as a president, the USA has shown the rest of the world that we really can get past our prejudices.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]The right has been circulating the lie that Obama is a Muslim to feed upon America's rampant xenophobia. While there's nothing wrong with Islam, it is false to call him a Muslim... he's a Christian (Protestant, attending United Church of Christ, if you care). There is no way either will choose the other to be their running mate. Their ideologies are diametrically opposed, and their platforms are too different to be compatible. If Obama became the Democratic candidate, I'd expect Edwards or Richardson to be his VP running mate. They don't represent the Washington establishment as much as Clinton does, and they're both less polarizing figures. As for me, I'm holding out hope for Obama in New Hampshire tomorrow. With any luck, Hillary's campaign will crumble under his momentum, especially if he can score another win.[/font]

[quote name='AzureWolf']Have you seen prostitutes? Most of them are god-ugly. Every girl's body, no matter how ugly (including transvestites), has "potential." You could say that's subjective, but the diversity of looks among prostitutes makes me believe this isn't a particularly choosy job.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]In relation to the discussion at hand, this is irrelevant. Even if a woman is unattractive and realizes she can use her body to pay the bills, I would still it is a resourceful way to getting money. In fact, I might even go so far as to argue an unattractive prostitute is even more resourceful in that she manages to use her sub-par looks to still accumulate wealth. [QUOTE]About it being resourceful: How does prostitution require any significant, beyond-the-normal-person-out-of-the-box thinking? It's just the opposite: it's bloody obvious. Read your own statement: most effective (aka most money) = most logical decision. lol, I think most people go for a job that pays the most if they can choose.[/QUOTE] No, the 'equation' is not 'bloody obvious' because the prostitute-to-be will have to factor in occupational hazard, personal dignity, and morals before calling it a good job. With all that considered, the fact that it is relatively high paying would not be enough to call it an obvious 'career' move. This is why most people do not want to become prostitutes -- there is an overwhelming number of negatives against the slim positive of money. As for it being resourceful, most people [i]do not[/i] consider their body to be [essentially] a standalone money machine. Either this, or people simply cannot bring themselves to become a prostitute. In both, the person is using the means given to them to make money. I consider this entrepreneurial. [QUOTE]Sounds like you are saying it's a last-resort. Something desperate people do. Something worth doing when circumstances call for such extremes. I'm saying this extreme doesn't exist in the US (but it does exist in other countries, and I acknowledge that). The only excuse for prostitution here is you are too lazy.[/QUOTE] Well, I'm sorry you judge people so freely. [QUOTE]You have yet to prove how you are allowed to impress your vision and I'm not. Unless you honestly think we shouldn't stop people from - say - committing suicide or suffering from addiction, then you're being a hypocrite.[/QUOTE] No, I do support helping others. If you disagreed with prostitution because it is a hurtful business that damages lives (and not because it is 'an escape for the lazy' or 'morally bankrupt'), then I will concede the point. The funny part about this is, yes, I am impressing my will upon you to prevent you from doing it to an entire group of people. This does seem paradoxical. The difference, however, is that I am willing to allow people to live their life as they see best, while you seem interested in making those judgments for others. I'm sort of morally relativist, so I doubt we'll ever reach consensus here. [QUOTE]If you think it's degrading and repulsive, why should it be made legal? That would make it harder for people to find respectable jobs and prostitution more enticing. It's already so easy to fall into it, and making it legal will make even more desperate people go towards this bloody obvious choice rather than look for better solutions. Prostitution ads and the like? No thank you. Prostitution schools? Gross...[/QUOTE] I think stripping is degrading and repulsive, but I am alright with its legality. I'm not sure if this makes it "harder for people to find respectable jobs" (and I would generally disagree with the claim), nor am I sure that its legality makes stripping an enticing gig. Sure, maybe women should look for better solutions, but who am I to close off this one path to making a living? So long as it's not forced against their will by some pimp, I have no problem with a 20something women joining a strip club. Hell, I find 2girls1cup degrading and repulsive, but that's legal too, lmao. Degrading/repulsive and legal are not mutually exclusive. [QUOTE]Finally, you do know that prostitution is not easy to get out of, right? Even if you willingly leave, you attract stalkers and obsessed clients who will create trouble and stress for you long after you leave. Unfortunately, this is "part of the job" and not something you can arbitrarily omit. If you think prostitution is ok, you imply that being stuck in it when you go in willingly is ok. I know you don't, but you have to realize that is an unremovable consequence and a burden no one should have.[/QUOTE] That's an understood occupational hazard. Test pilots know they could die any given on the job, but if they want that job then let them have it. [QUOTE]Finally, I think everyone's morals and views should be expressed, not forced. I don't know why you do not want to openly make a stance on the subject. I think more input from more people gives better insight (well, more *intelligible* people). It lets others adjust their views, think about topics. For example, I thought about Retribution's statements, and I don't think we disagree at all about what prostitution is and what its effects are. I think we just disagree on what should be done about it (i.e., his "live and let live" vs my "die f###ing die").[/QUOTE] I think this is entirely valid. From our discussion, I do feel like I understand where you're coming from more than before this debate.[/font]

[quote name='AzureWolf']I wouldn't call it resourceful. Easy? Yes. Resourceful? Hardly. Resourceful implies some sort of... use of intellect. You know, something that requires thought or at least imagination. Cavemen were doing it way before these "resourceful" prostitutes of our age figured it out, and nevermind that you'd be hard-pressed to prove cavemen lived in a capitalist environment.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]It's certainly resourceful. Everyone deals with their personal circumstances, and prostitution can be a way out of (or a way to cope with) an undesirable life. If a girl is physically attractive, but failed out of school, she is resourceful if she acknowledges her body as a potential (and, indeed, the most effective at this point) means of accruing wealth and uses it to that end. She uses what she has to make money, essentially. [QUOTE]You are welcome to defend prostitution, but don't raise it up as "going up against the man."[/QUOTE] Perhaps you misunderstand when I say it is a "way to survive within an capitalist system". There is no systemic conflict -- on the contrary, there is coexistence. Prostitution is a crude form of entrepreneurialism where the prostitute offers a service to clients, who in return pay money. [QUOTE]Then who the hell are you to tell them they can? If I don't have a right to an opinion, neither do you. I am not beneath you.[/QUOTE] I never stripped you of your right to have an opinion. However I do find it presumptuous of you to think you have some obligation to impress upon others [i]your[/i] vision of how [i]their[/i] life should be lived. [QUOTE]Don't use that cop out. Seriously. People worry about others. I worry about my family and friends, and even strangers. So do millions of others. If you think your logic does not apply to something like feeding the starving children of the world but does apply to something like prostitution, go back to your hypocritical statement: who are you to decide what aspects of a person's life others should help with and shouldn't help with? I'd go further, like say you aren't a fan of democracy, but you get my point. That "Worry about yourself: don't pay any mind to people..." is not something I agree with.[/QUOTE] I get the general impression that you are not concerned for the well-being of prostitutes, but see it as a morally bankrupt enterprise. Speaking in broad terms, I doubt you are truly worried for the welfare of prostitutes. In this sense, when I say "don't worry about them" I mean "let them live their life" (to be simple). Although semantics are fun, I'm not really interested in being painted an apathetic man. [QUOTE]You can glorify prostitution all you want, but anyone with an iota of intelligence doesn't find it respectable. Even looking past that it's sex, the fact that it requires no talent/ability/intelligence/anything makes prostitution just not all that impressive. Let's be honest with ourselves for a minute: if we really thought prostitution was God's gift to the workforce, I think many more men and women would not attend school and just settle for this easy way out. The reason they don't is it's not a respectable job, not something you put on your resumé, and not something that should be done in the first place.[/QUOTE] I'm not glorifying prostitution, nor do I find it respectable, sry m8. Granted, I do find the business to be utterly degrading and personally repulsive. And as previously stated, I do worry that lack of regulation could easily lead to a tacit support of human trafficking.[/font]

[quote name='AzureWolf']Prostitution, or "the world's oldest profession" as someone most likely will call it (sorry to kill your buzz, whoever), is not ok by my book even consensually. While I'm sure the thousands of commenters on sex blogs like Confessions of a College Callgirl would beg to differ, I just see it as lame. There's no requirements, no education, no technique, no training, etc. It's promoting a bad idea or way to make easy-earned money, IMO.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]So? Doesn't this make it a good move for people lacking education and qualification? I see it as a very resourceful way to survive within a capitalist system. If you look good enough and are good enough at what you do, why not get paid if people are willing to give you cash for your "good or [i]service[/i]". [QUOTE]You can think I am a person who lazed through his college degrees (and you'd be right), but that doesn't make prostitution any less wholesome. I applaud those who look for the harder way out, don't give up their bodies, work for $2 an hour or whatever to reach whatever goals they have, because they realize that nothing worth having will come easy.[/QUOTE] But if they want to do that, who are you to tell them they can't make a living the easy way? Worry about yourself; don't pay any mind to people who make short-sighted fortunes through easy means. [QUOTE]Also, c'mon, what type of life, no matter how consensual, will you be committing yourself to? There's really no reason to - in the US - to resort to prostitution. Money is everywhere. You just need to know what you want to get at it.[/QUOTE] Hey, if they choose that life then it should be theirs to have. My only reservation is if they don't willfully choose prostitution and are intimidated/blackmailed into it.[/font]

[font=Arial]I feel like the definitions of love and hate have been diluted so that we forget what they actually stand for. Love is a term that is technically assigned to the feeling of deep affection and connection to someone or something. And while most would agree with me that this is a good definition, many would disagree with me on what situations one could accurately use the word "love". I would say that a teenage couple does not feel love, but perhaps infatuation. They are simply not mature enough to understand or feel the profoundness that is true love. I don't say this to be condescending, but I personally believe that your teenage years are when you are personally developing and growing and finding yourself -- you are simply not finished growing, or at least not to the point where you can truly love your girlfriend/boyfriend. However, I would say that teenagers can love their parents. It is such a deep and long-term bond that I would say the parent and child do share something deeper. Of course this is all abstract and case-by-case. As for hate, I feel like it shares the same level of depth and strength as love, but in the opposite respect. To truly hate someone, you have to truly wish only ill upon them, to give them no sympathy in your mind. I find that hate is even stronger than love. Love is capable of great things, capable of inspiring people to sacrifice their lives for their love. However, I find hatred burns away all doubt and passivity. The best example I can give is how people behave in crisis -- during any genocide, one group is made to detest another and kill them. Although there can be those who love the detested group, rarely will there be as much power or will to save them as there is to kill them. I guess my entire point of this long rant is to say that they are both extremely strong words. Do not use them lightly, so that they may maintain their potency in your mind. Very briefly, I'd like to wrap this up by adding in my favorite quote on love: [B]1 Corinthians 13:4-7:[/B] Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”[/font]

[font=Arial]The funny thing is individualism is being misused in the majority of posts, and that the mainstream is not necessarily at odds with it. Individualism is essentially self-reliance and/or social action that favors freedom of action of the individual over collective control. With this considered, individualism [i]simply is not[/i] rebelling against everything the status quo represents. It is not being a nonconformist or listening to indie music or anything of the sort. What is being called "the mainstream" has little to do with individualism. The mainstream is simply what the majority of the population approves of. This means you can be an individualist yet accept mainstream values because individualism only rejects a forced acceptance of these values. So to answer you Korey, there is no balancing act between the two. I generally abide by the 'live and let live' philosophy, especially when it comes to personal taste/fashion.[/font]

[quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="77656"]I hate Gwen Stefani, and I'll hate her perfume. I'd rather buy Scent de ****-stain from a prostitute in the Las Vegas ghetto. I don't know what hte **** a hollaback girl is, so WHAT IS SHE?[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]For the record: A holla back girl is essentially a girl a guy calls irregularly for the sex. I'll leave it to you to decode the etymology of it all.[/font]

[font=Arial]Alright, I guess I'll be honest about this as well. It depends how dire the situation is and the degrees of separation from me to the other person in need. For instance, my room mate was going to miss his flight if he took public transportation (from Manhattan to JFK airport by subway is approx an hour and a half), but the cab ride is approx $60 when you ride alone and he simply didn't have that. So I fronted him the 60, in addition to the 15 bucks I had floating around in my wallet. Where I go to school there are just so many homeless people that any effort of charity seems ultimately useless. You'll never be able to feed everyone, and any money you give will be used in a day, and tomorrow they'll need more. At the beginning of the school year when I was new to the environment, I gave quite a bit. Now, however, I've been desensitized to the area and rarely give anything. It really is terrible how willfully blind people are to such great human suffering, and I'm part of the problem... I'd probably say I'm above average in terms of generousity and selflessness. But, like most other people, if it requires me to go too far out of my way, I probably wouldn't help.[/font]

[font=Arial]I doubt the L (L.A.M.B.) thing is a coincidence in the light of her Harajuku Lovers line. She definitely has a penchant for Japanese culture. That said, I think it makes her look foolish, but that's just me.[/font]

[font=Arial]I drank a Red Bull right before my karate belt exam because I was going to operate off four hours of sleep and one meal. I'm not sure about any physiological effects, but I can attest to the fact that it made me feel more focused (assuming this isn't the placebo at work). I generally stay away from them though. I chugged two Rockstars in ten minutes and felt like my heart was going to jump out of my chest... I assume this means it causes serious strain within you.[/font]

[quote name='AzureWolf']OK, you know what?! I'm freakin' sick of this thread. Here is the post that will put both sides at rest: [url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-940551580328756105[/url] Who are you going to listen to? Some "scientists" you never met, some "online friends" you never met or can trust, OR those imaginary childhood cartoon characters who were always there for you while you were growing up? I mean, sure, for them to come to life and give you solutions to your problems specifically, you'd probably need to be high, but that's besides the point. I don't know about you, but Bugs and Michaelangelo never steered me wrong, so I'm going with their advice. That, and the Ducktales game rocked my socks off.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Bush I endorses it, enough reason to not listen. ;)[/font]

[font=Arial]Quick post before I head to sleep. Lying is absolutely acceptable in many cases. Generally, if the intent of deception is for good (not of your own) then it is acceptable. Here's an example: An infant refuses to take a medicine because it hates the taste, however it is absolutely necessary to take if the baby is to survive. The mother slips the medicine into her breast milk to mask the taste, thus deceiving her child, but her child is also saved through this. I think Plato called this a noble lie. Other times it's alright to lie: - When a social faux pas will result if you tell the truth (i.e. "your cooking is terrible") - When the lie will not deal any damage (i.e. don't say "No, I didn't steal it, she did") - When preserving your own social standing can be done with a non-damaging lie (i.e. "No, of course I don't hate your brother") - When the lie will deal less damage than the truth... in a sense, this is damage control (i.e. "I'm just not looking for a relationship right now" instead of "Get away from me, you're gross") - Or whenever you deem socially expedient (jk... kinda) Generally I keep away from too many white lies. If I were to always say "Oh yeah, I love that band too!" people would accumulate a false picture of who I am while I am solely trying to gain friends. In order to preserve these lies, you have to start living a false lie, or tell the truth, which might irreversibly alter your "friends" mental picture of you. Although I definitely have told some major lies. The trick with those is that you have to use them very sparingly, and come up with good back story to support them. If you tell an extremely intricate lie, you're bound to contradict yourself somewhere. So when my mother asks why I smell like pot, I tell her: "I had to ride in the car with [insert name], who turns out to be a stoner, and he was smoking up in the car. When we got out at Burger King for food, we talked him into extinguishing the thing since [insert name] has asthma." There's enough detail to make it believable (compare with: "Uh, this guy I was hanging out with was smoking near me"), yet the details are all throw-away and nondescript. Erm, exercise good judgment, kids. Or something like that.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Oh terrors. :p[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]lolz [QUOTE][FONT=Arial](You [I]are[/I] aware that [COLOR="DarkRed"]Retribution[/COLOR] and I are on slightly different sides, right?)[/FONT][/QUOTE] Slightly different sides, but equally [b][i]awesome[/i][/b], yo.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial][COLOR="DarkRed"]Gavin[/COLOR] took that concept apart from the intermediate logical processes and made an additional observation: the majority of those who would be classified as "legal adults" do not agree with the recreational use of marijuana and doubtless would not purchase it. Taken another step further: if those who would [I]be able to[/I] buy said theoretically legal substance would in fact [I]not[/I] buy it, what was the point of making said substance legal?[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Gavin's statement pertained to those who posted within the thread. Whether or not the representation of support in this thread is indicative of its real-world support is another matter entirely. And in this respect, it is an unfair thing to say within this context. Simply because a [b]few[/b] people on [b]one[/b] online forum are against legalization does not lend [i]any[/i] credence or weight to maintaining marijuana's illegal status. A national referendum would be a more accurate measure of the adult will, and I would be willing to submit to the judgment of the population. As for the question of economics, I doubt marijuana would ever become a heavily commercialized good (like cigarettes are now) because of how easy it is to grow locally. And for this reason, I doubt it will ever be legalized.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Eh, no. This is an observation, denoted by the key word [I]"seems"[/I]. I'm not going to argue you on aught else, since (as I said before) neither of the sides has a decent argument. I just ask that the "logical fallacy" card not be thrown wantonly and carelessly around. I think you rely on it by itself far too much, and I worry that might come back to bite you at some point.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]While he is correct in his observation (thus it is a fact), it is totally inconsequential to the rest of the debate. His assertion, while not identical, is extremely close to both [i]argumentum ad populum[/i] (appeal to majority ... most people say A, thus A is right) and the appeal to authority (those in authority say A, thus A is right).[/font]

[quote name='Gavin'][SIZE="1"]For me it would depend on the amount in possession. Obviously a person with a few grams of the stuff for their own personal use should not be given the same kind of sentense as the dealer with a couple of kilos in his car. To my knowledge, at least here in Ireland, prison time is more so given to dealers than addicts, it's usually only multiple instances of possession gets you time for the latter. I'm not sure why you disagree with giving possession a prison sentence, but in my own case I believe that for the addict, doing so with not help them overcome their addiction, that and prisons are notoriously easy for getting drugs in, which sort of defeats the purpose.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I see weed and cigarettes to be about equivalent in terms of erm... "badness" (?) if this makes any sense. So in this light, it would strike me as ridiculous to jail someone carrying a mass amount of cigarettes, even if they did have intent to sell them. Additionally, the addictive properties are heavily contested with respect to marijuana. If anything, I would argue they are less addictive than cigarettes, but I don't feel like hunting for verification. But even if they did become addicted to marijuana, why does the government have to be responsible for breaking their habit if it is themselves they harm? The "damage" of weed to a person or a community is negligible. Of course, I agree with the government taking action for something like heroine or cocaine, which have significant documentation on its addictive properties and destruction of inner cities. However I simply don't see marijuana to be anywhere near that level. [QUOTE][SIZE="1"]Your overriding concern Alex has been that you disagree with other people deciding on what you can and cannot do after you‘ve become an adult, you call that self-determination, I personally think it sounds childish because it means you don’t like being told what you’re allowed do. Maybe I’m wrong, as I said, it’s just how I read it. That said, particularly within this context I see your desire to legalise a harmful, addictive substance out of this idea of self-determination, even if it causes them harm to be immature because it would be “impugning on their private lives” and that‘s not a good enough reason to let someone harm themselves in my mind.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] I'm not arguing against governmental legislation for the safety of the public. I'm arguing against legislation that interferes with a personal decision that affects only the person choosing the action. I am not complaining about "being told what to do," because that would mean I'm an anarchist... I'm not. I'm "complaining" about being told what to do when my personal decision affects me and only me. I don't want the government to tell me I can't play football "for my own good". Sure, the government can say "You'll get seriously injured if you play football because you are weak" but at the end of the day, the choice to try out for a team rests with me. Who is the government to say I'm too weak, if only my personal safety is at risk here? If you are alright with the government deciding what you can and cannot do when it concerns only you, I am deeply disturbed. I say this with total seriousness. [QUOTE][size=1]If you go back and reread the thread, note how nearly everyone who actually is a legal adult has disagreed with the legalisation of marijuana. It seems the “adults” who you’re trying to do this for disagree with you.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] This is a logical fallacy. [QUOTE][SIZE="1"]As for the banning things that serve no purpose, reread the post, I said dangerous things that serve no purpose, there is a difference.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] Well, aside from the point that "serving no purpose" is entirely relative, dangerous things that serve no purpose should absolutely be legal if the danger only concerns the person choosing to participate. What about bungie jumping? Skydiving? These also serve only to give people enjoyment, while being undeniably dangerous. Should they also be illegal?[/font]

[quote name='Gavin'][size=1]Well both are intertwined from what I see, obviously you have to be able to get the stuff in order to be able to be caught with it. The fact that cannabis a lot easier to get, relatively speaking, than other drugs makes that fact even more important when people talk about it being illegal.[/size][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Ease of purchase has absolutely nothing to do with our debate on its legality. I'm more or less speaking on this topic based upon principle. I know pot is extremely easy to come by, but I disagree with the idea that you can get a jail sentence for possession. [QUOTE][SIZE="1"]I understand where you're coming from Alex, but honestly this whole "I don't like being told what I can and can't do" sounds honestly a bit, and I'm hesitant to use the word, but it sounds childish to me. I accept this is just a rant and you mightn?t actually have meant it that way, but it?s just how it sounded as I read it. I have already said in this thread that I support prohibition and a full ban on tobacco products for the reasons you?ve outlined above, they?re dangerous and serve no purpose.[/size][/QUOTE] Actually, if you look slightly deeper, you'll see that some (perhaps not all) of my concerns are legitimate, not some angst-ridden teenage moanfest. But if you read it as such, I'm not worried. Do explain to me how the desire for self-determination is childish, especially within this context. [QUOTE][SIZE=1]You say that legalising cannabis will make the courts less clogged, but what happens if say a drug addict doesn?t have enough money to walk into a pharmacy and buy his supply and he goes out and mugs someone to pay for it ? It?s a common occurrence now for addicts to commit crimes to pay for their habit, in getting them early for possession, maybe more serious crimes are being stopped. At least that?s just my thoughts.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] You can say the same for alcohol, which by the way, is in all likelihood more addictive than pot. And last I checked, alcohol-dependency motivated robbery isn't rampant. This holds no water. As for banning things that serve no purpose, it is perhaps the weakest argument one could make for maintaining the marijuana law. When applied to other scenarios, I'm sure you'll find yourself standing on sandy ground.[/font]

[quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"] Don't forget white, too.[/font][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Oh, right, how could I forget? Right, right, it's a tragedy that she killed herself or whatever. What about news that [i]actually matters[/i]?[/font]

[quote name='Gavin'][SIZE="1"]Quoted for truth, go to a local high school or college and you won't have any trouble getting some.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]But the debate isn't over the [i]ability[/i] to smoke up, it's over not going to jail if you have weed on your person, which is absolutely ridiculous. I'll be frank for a moment. I find those who want to make decisions for others truly annoying. Well, annoying doesn't grasp the enormity of the feeling. It's people like that in this nation who want abortion illegal, who want gay marriage illegal, who want to keep watch of you and tap your phone [i]all for your safety[/i]. Sure, this is a slippery slope (and yes, I'm aware it's a logical fallacy) but it's people like that who keep legislating other people's lives. I hate it. The way I see it, if you want to keep marijuana illegal, you should also support prohibition and making cigarettes illegal. Both are detrimental to ones health. Both "touch other people's lives" in a negative way. Both are responsible for plenty of ill intent. Both serve no real purpose aside from having fun in a way that is dangerous for your health. But frankly, I figure if you want to smoke, go right ahead. If you're an adult, you should decide what you do with your life. I figure if you want a beer, go for it. Do it all responsibly. I don't want a cop to arrest a stoner, to make the legal system even more bogged down with totally useless cases when greater things are at hand. Personally, I'm not too big on pot. But so long as it doesn't have catastrophically negative effects on communities like cocaine does, I honesty don't care if a college kid wants to get blazed and neglect his studies. On an unrelated note, I hate that you can die for your country at 18, but can't have a beer or a joint at that point. ****ing conservatives. [/rant][/font]

[font=Arial]Why are we protecting people from themselves? Isn't part of being an adult the ability to make personal decisions and not have the government unnecessarily intervening in their private life? Sure, it's not healthy. So what? Should we legislate diet as well, so that you're only allowed a certain calorie intake relative to your personal weight?[/font]

[font=Arial]I invite those who are anti-Mary Jane to give a valid reason as to why it should remain illegal. To be honest, I have yet to hear any reasoning worth my time. Marijuana should absolutely be legal. The only reason it's not is because big business wouldn't be able to make massive money off its sale. Let's look at some criticism of marijuana: - It impairs judgment and hinders ones ability to operate cars, etc, and thus could be potentially dangerous. [i]Alcohol, anyone?[/i] By this logic, we should return to prohibition, simply because it is responsible for road-deaths. - It is a gateway drug that leads you to do 'harder' drugs, which is detrimental to a healthy community. [i]Marijuana is a gateway drug because it puts you into contact with dealers who also sell dangerous drugs[/i]. This is due to its illegality. If it were legal, you wouldn't have to meet up with a dodgy dealer who is also selling heroin or cocaine, you'd go to the store and buy a joint, thus keeping you away from the dangerous network of 'hard' drugs. - Marijuana hurts your health, and is addictive. [i]Cigarettes, anyone?[/i] Certainly, no smoking is good for you, so in this respect it is unhealthy as well... however, so are cigarettes. Furthermore, there is much contention over marijuana's allegedly addictive properties. But more related to the topic at hand, no amount of signatures, no essay, and no amount of facts will get you off the hook. The judge simply won't alter decades of legal precedent for your sake. Good luck in court, bro.[/font]

[quote name='indifference'][COLOR="Indigo"]Look a little further Retri... If any of the other articles are correct, more than that happened. Though I'll agree that it's Sensationalized. And I'll agree with A_M that it's still sick that a parent would even send a "malicious" message.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Sorry, I'm just sick and tired of beautiful girls making the news because they die in a car crash or committed suicide.[/font]

[font=Arial]Ladies and gentlemen, I watched the video on the article page and I must say, with the information I've gathered I think she really overreacted. 'Josh' was cited as having said "I'm not sure I want to be friends with you anymore because I hear you treat them badly." And then the video goes on to say "The rejection was devastating... the next day, Megan took her life". Within this same message, apparently he called her a bad person who everyone hated. Perhaps I misread this, but it did not seem like prolonged harrassment. Honestly, even if the girl were depressed, something this minor should not be considered this massive and concentrated effort at forcing her to suicide. While it's truly tragic she took her life, I'm not really ready to get outraged at the mother if she only sent a "malicious" message. Sensationalized news. Sigh.[/font]