PDA

View Full Version : Denver voters sink to new depths of stupidity.


Rain Man
11-01-2005, 11:38 PM
Okay, we had a local election today, and among other things, Colorado voters opted to give back several hundred dollars in tax rebates so that we can have a bigger government, and they voted to increase taxes for a pay raise for teachers. They also voted to increase hotel taxes so that we can further inhibit tourism.

But the real kicker is this: stoners, come to Denver! It is now legal to possess up to an ounce of marijuana in our fair city, thanks to a blatantly false and dishonest ad campaign that confused a bunch of low-IQ Broncos fans. I may as well not even replace my bike, because it's going to get stolen every week now.

The pro-stoner campaign drew a lot of wrath by flat-out trying to mislead people. They put out a bunch of signs that said "Vote for this amendment for a safer Denver," which featured a photo of a domestic abuse victim. No mention of marijuana at all, and a blatant attempt to mislead voters into thinking that the ballot measure was aimed at domestic violence. It was an incredibly unethical campaign, but at the same time it's disappointing that all of those people didn't do better research before voting.


http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4166442,00.html

Pot-law backers delay billboards
Measure's supporters defend ad's image of domestic abuse

By Alan Gathright, Rocky Mountain News
October 18, 2005

Sponsors of a Denver marijuana legalization ballot measure announced Monday they are delaying the debut of three billboards showing a battered woman.

Political leaders and domestic violence advocates had condemned the ads for misleading voters and exploiting the tragedy of abused women. The billboards had been scheduled to appear Monday, but now won't go up for at least three days.

The planned billboards showed a downcast woman with a black eye, her abuser lurking behind her, and the slogan: "Reduce family and community violence in Denver. Vote Yes on I-100."

Nowhere was there a mention that Initiative 100's passage would amend Denver law to make it legal for adults to possess 1 ounce or less of marijuana.

I-100 campaign director Mason Tvert defended the honesty of the billboard's message - and the central theme of the Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative - that marijuana is a safer alternative to alcohol.

He cited local and national studies saying booze fuels domestic violence as well as injuries and deaths caused by drunken-driving collisions, other violence and alcoholism.

A Massachusetts marijuana-reform group, Change the Climate, independently paid less than $10,000 for the billboards.

Tvert's group, Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation, plans to announce Wednesday whether it will go ahead with the proposed image or alter the ad.

"Given that there has been such a backlash, we obviously did not mean to offend anybody," Tvert said. "It's unfortunate that domestic violence groups, who are upset by these ads, have decided to be opposed to this because we are really trying to raise attention to that issue."

Denver police and the city attorney have stressed that changing the local ordinance will have little impact, because the vast majority of pot-possession cases are prosecuted under state law as a petty offense, punishable by a fine up to $100.

And Denver police made only 2,072 pot-possession arrests in 2004 - just 3.2 percent of all arrests in the city. That was a 41 percent drop from the 3,500 possession cases in 1998.



http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051030-114653-3362r.htm

Pot advocacy campaign promises a safer Denver
By Valerie Richardson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 31, 2005


DENVER -- An initiative on tomorrow's ballot would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana in the Mile High City, but you wouldn't know it from the ad campaign.
The pro-pot campaign, Safer Alternatives for Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER), has blanketed the city with red-and-white signs urging Denverites to vote yes on Initiative 100, saying the measure will "Make Denver Safer."
Nowhere do the signs say anything about marijuana. The point, says SAFER Executive Director Mason Tvert, is that boozers would mellow out and become less violent if they could smoke pot instead.
"It's our position that if people choose to use marijuana instead of alcohol, we would not have these problems," said Mr. Tvert, 23, who has run successful nonbinding pro-pot campaigns at two Colorado universities.
That argument has outraged everyone from domestic-violence counselors to tough-on-crime advocates, who say the SAFER campaign is deliberately deceiving the public with tortured reasoning.
"It's blatantly misleading," said Denver City Council member Charlie Brown. "They ought to be ashamed of themselves. I was shocked and surprised that they would use this tactic without ever mentioning the word 'marijuana.'?"
Mr. Brown pulled dozens of the campaign's signs from Observatory Park while calling on the SAFER campaign to cease its ads. Colorado law prohibits the display of campaign materials at public parks.
"The problem is there's no organized opposition, and you see these signs everywhere," said Mr. Brown.
SAFER activists are unbowed, insisting that crime, domestic abuse and drunken driving would plummet if marijuana were legalized. A prominent billboard near Invesco Field at Mile High, home of the Denver Broncos, reads: "Alcohol use makes domestic violence 8 times more likely ... Marijuana does not."
At a rally last week, SAFER activists called Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper a "drug dealer" because he owns the Wynkoop Brewery Co.
"What's the difference between Mayor Hickenlooper and a marijuana dealer? The mayor has made his fortune selling a more harmful drug: Alcohol," said an enormous banner at the rally.
The proposal would make it legal for adults to possess as much as 1 ounce of marijuana, similar to laws in Seattle, Oakland, Calif., and a few college towns.
Despite widespread condemnation by lawmakers and editorial pages, the outcome of Initiative 100 is uncertain. A poll commissioned by SAFER found 32 percent of voters favored the measure, with 36 percent opposed.
Even if the measure passes, lawmakers say, Denver police would charge violators under state law, which carries a fine of up to $100 for marijuana possession, plus a $100 drug-offender surcharge.
The biggest impact could come on Denver's reputation, critics say.
"The real concern is about the ramifications for Denver for attracting business if this thing happens," Mr. Brown said. "Next thing you know, we'll have drug dealers setting up shop in City Park."

Demonpenz
11-01-2005, 11:41 PM
i think smoking alittle weed is better pain killer than the demeral the dr has me on now

Douche Baggins
11-01-2005, 11:42 PM
This is good. We want those Donkey players high all the time.

Skip Towne
11-01-2005, 11:46 PM
Why does Denver even exist? I mean we don't really need a Pony Express station there anymore. And it's easy to fly right over it. Seriously, why is it even there?

Rain Man
11-01-2005, 11:47 PM
Why does Denver even exist? I mean we don't really need a Pony Express station there anymore. And it's easy to fly right over it. Seriously, why is it even there?

We exist only because they need someone to clean up the wrecks coming down the mountain on Interstate 70.

ENDelt260
11-01-2005, 11:50 PM
But the real kicker is this: stoners, come to Denver! It is now legal to possess up to an ounce of marijuana in our fair city

I'm gonna need a hell of a lot more than an O to put up with being surrounded by Bronco fans.

tk13
11-01-2005, 11:50 PM
I don't know if you saw the thread I posted a while back... but ESPN.com writer Bill Simmons was doing a book tour for his new book, and he even said in one of his columns as a side note... Denver easily had the largest amount of stoners at a book signing. Maybe it wasn't an accident.

tk13
11-01-2005, 11:51 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=127242

Pitt Gorilla
11-01-2005, 11:59 PM
Uh, DC forum.

elvomito
11-02-2005, 12:14 AM
because of this i've actually gained a little respect for denver... so, thats about at a level equivilent to dog stool thats been sitting on your carpet for a day, then you go to clean it up and you break the dried outer shell thereby revealing the hideous stench from within.... so, yeah, denver has gained a bit of respect on my eyes.

Rausch
11-02-2005, 12:23 AM
I consider this a win.

Any time PC comes back to bite people in the ass I'm all for it...

Miles
11-02-2005, 12:24 AM
But the real kicker is this: stoners, come to Denver! It is now legal to possess up to an ounce of marijuana in our fair city, thanks to a blatantly false and dishonest ad campaign that confused a bunch of low-IQ Broncos fans. I may as well not even replace my bike, because it's going to get stolen every week now.


Ha, thats what those signs were for. I had no idea what the hell they were. Thought it was kind of odd that they just said "Keep Denver safe"

greg63
11-02-2005, 12:39 AM
We exist only because they need someone to clean up the wrecks coming down the mountain on Interstate 70.
ROFLROFLROFLROFL

Hey, as long as we have politicians with overstuffed billfolds we will have misleading political campaigns and stupid laws. Next presidential election I'm voting for Mickey Mouse.

stevieray
11-02-2005, 07:27 AM
drug dealers in city park?

like that hasn't been going on for years.

sedated
11-02-2005, 07:31 AM
I'll be there soon...

sedated
11-02-2005, 07:32 AM
What do pot-heads have to do with stealing bikes?
They don't steal, hippies are peaceful folk.

It's the Mexicans you gotta look out for.

Mr. Kotter
11-02-2005, 07:42 AM
Why does Denver even exist? I mean we don't really need a Pony Express station there anymore. And it's easy to fly right over it. Seriously, why is it even there?

As much as I hate the Broncos, Denver is a very nice city. At least it use to be. :shrug:



Well it used to be nice, before all the problems with gangs, drugs, and high crime rates started. And, well, the other social decay and decadence. And that damned airport out in the boonies. And the blizards. And the crumbling infrastructure. And the stinkin' mountains; sure they are good to look at for a minute or two, but who likes driving in them, or climbing them? And, oh yeah....the friggin' Broncos.

Hey, wait....Skip just may be right.

joesomebody
11-02-2005, 08:07 AM
Didn't the federal gov overturn California legalizing medicinal marijuana? I didn't pay too much attention, cause its gonna be illegal in the UCMJ no matter what, but I guess Denver can still legalize non medicinal marijuana? Meaning the FDA was what made medicinal marijuana illegal? Or is Denver just violating the rulings of the US Supreme Court?

Brock
11-02-2005, 08:12 AM
Uh, DC forum.

Here you go:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30

Saulbadguy
11-02-2005, 08:13 AM
Free bikes for everyone!

Brock
11-02-2005, 08:13 AM
Didn't the federal gov overturn California legalizing medicinal marijuana? I didn't pay too much attention, cause its gonna be illegal in the UCMJ no matter what, but I guess Denver can still legalize non medicinal marijuana? Meaning the FDA was what made medicinal marijuana illegal? Or is Denver just violating the rulings of the US Supreme Court?

Marijuana is still illegal. They just aren't going to bother to arrest you if you have an ounce or less.

Saulbadguy
11-02-2005, 08:14 AM
On 4/20 in Boulder, several hundred students meet up at a place on campus and they all smoke weed, in public. The cops don't even try to do anything about it. I don't think they really care.

Rain Man
11-02-2005, 08:24 AM
As much as I hate the Broncos, Denver is a very nice city. At least it use to be. :shrug:



Well it used to be nice, before all the problems with gangs, drugs, and high crime rates started. And, well, the other social decay and decadence. And that damned airport out in the boonies. And the blizards. And the crumbling infrastructure. And the stinkin' mountains; sure they are good to look at for a minute or two, but who likes driving in them, or climbing them? And, oh yeah....the friggin' Broncos.

Hey, wait....Skip just may be right.


Actually, I love the city as long as I'm upwind from Invesco Field. Based on my (admittedly incomplete) experience, it's one of the best cities to live in in America. It's just that it's a weird place sometimes in that things happen here that shouldn't happen in a major metropolitan area.

Brock
11-02-2005, 08:26 AM
It's basically Albuquerque North.

Rain Man
11-02-2005, 08:26 AM
What do pot-heads have to do with stealing bikes?
They don't steal, hippies are peaceful folk.


There's a 1:1 correlation. I have the facts.

Inspector
11-02-2005, 08:44 AM
I'd prefer cops spend their time catching criminals anyway. Who gives a F____ what consenting adults do to their own body?

You wanna stop them? Hey, go ahead, but use your own money, not mine. I want my crime fighting $$ spent on stopping people from causing harm to other people, not controling what they do to themselves.

Isn't this just common sense?

Saulbadguy
11-02-2005, 08:46 AM
I'd prefer cops spend their time catching criminals anyway. Who gives a F____ what consenting adults do to their own body?


It is because they steal bikes.

Inspector
11-02-2005, 08:47 AM
It is because they steal bikes.

I fully support cops apprehending theives. That's how I want my crime fighting dollars spent - to stop bad people from hurting others.

Eventually, maybe, people will figure this out.

CosmicPal
11-02-2005, 08:51 AM
Uhhhhhhh, this is a step in the right direction.
:harumph:

It doesn't matter what the local or state government pass- the fact is- it is illegal to possess marijuana on the federal level.

Mr. Kotter
11-02-2005, 09:33 AM
Actually, I love the city as long as I'm upwind from Invesco Field. Based on my (admittedly incomplete) experience, it's one of the best cities to live in in America. It's just that it's a weird place sometimes in that things happen here that shouldn't happen in a major metropolitan area.

I actually like Denver. I was just taking potshots at the home of the Broncos. I loved Colorado Springs; consider my move away to be one of my three regrets in life. If we could get the Broncos to move to LA, now I'd consider moving back even.

You hiring histrionic disgruntled but talented former teacher types by chance? :hmmm:

BCD
11-02-2005, 09:39 AM
Eh. Alcohol is legal. Why not Marijuana?

Rain Man
11-02-2005, 09:40 AM
I actually like Denver. I was just taking potshots at the home of the Broncos. I loved Colorado Springs; consider my move away to be one of my three regrets in life. If we could get the Broncos to move to LA, now I'd consider moving back even.

You hiring histrionic disgruntled but talented former teacher types by chance? :hmmm:


We were just discussing the other day adding a Histrionic Disgruntled Analyst position. I'll be in touch if we decide to go for it.

Area 51
11-02-2005, 09:42 AM
Actually, I love the city as long as I'm upwind from Invesco Field. Based on my (admittedly incomplete) experience, it's one of the best cities to live in in America. It's just that it's a weird place sometimes in that things happen here that shouldn't happen in a major metropolitan area.

Isn't Invesco where they do maintenance on all of the big plastic porti-potties? That could be where the odor comes from! Upwind is probably good!

Area 51
11-02-2005, 09:43 AM
Eh. Alcohol is legal. Why not Marijuana?

Timing.

Mr. Kotter
11-02-2005, 09:44 AM
We were just discussing the other day adding a Histrionic Disgruntled Analyst position. I'll be in touch if we decide to go for it.

FWIW, I'd give you at least two full weeks notice before pursuing more lucrative opportunities. That and I assure you my breasts would not distract you from your work.

jspchief
11-02-2005, 10:12 AM
The drug testing business in Denver just got a big boost. If I was in the business, I would be opening my Denver branch within the week.

Mr. Kotter
11-02-2005, 10:13 AM
The drug testing business in Denver just got a big boost. If I was in the business, I would be opening my Denver branch within the week.

Now we're talking; I am looking for opportunities.....I wonder if the SBA is handing out loans these days? :hmmm:

KC Kings
11-02-2005, 10:19 AM
1. If cops use the extra time they gain from not worrying about weed to catch dangerous criminals, this is a good law.

2. I know a lot of people that use marijuana, and all of them have been dumbed down from years of use. This statement is going to piss off a lot of stoners, but that is only because you took too many tokes and are too dumb to realize I am right. If all the kids coming out of college are allowed to be pot heads, it is going to make it easier to keep my job.

KC Kings
11-02-2005, 10:21 AM
The drug testing business in Denver just got a big boost. If I was in the business, I would be opening my Denver branch within the week.

Not me. I would would take the money and open several Krispy Creme and White Castle joints.

Demonpenz
11-02-2005, 10:23 AM
1. If cops use the extra time they gain from not worrying about weed to catch dangerous criminals, this is a good law.

2. I know a lot of people that use marijuana, and all of them have been dumbed down from years of use. This statement is going to piss off a lot of stoners, but that is only because you took too many tokes and are too dumb to realize I am right. If all the kids coming out of college are allowed to be pot heads, it is going to make it easier to keep my job.


Link?

jspchief
11-02-2005, 10:25 AM
Link?This may come as a suprise to you, but it's nearly impossible to give an internet link to personal experiences.

mike_b_284
11-02-2005, 10:26 AM
Very good point kc kings.
By the way, there is no federal law against possesion of pot. You still get hard time in Levenworth for cultivation and trafficing, not to mention the tax ramifications. The feds will be in there busting dealers and growers in no time. This will drive up the price and all the hippies will be broke, then they will go live in the caves in the mountains. Just watch

Saulbadguy
11-02-2005, 10:26 AM
Subtle Demonpenz humor.

Area 51
11-02-2005, 10:28 AM
This may come as a suprise to you, but it's nearly impossible to give an internet link to personal experiences.

Maybe not if your crime was put into the national crime computer!!

Reaper16
11-02-2005, 10:45 AM
What's wrong with pay increase for teachers? :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
11-02-2005, 10:48 AM
Link?

Sorry, dude; you are young enough not to have witnessed the progression with friends and family. Some of us have.

But if that's what a person wants to do, it's a free country. :shrug:

(Offended examples, to chime in....in 3-2-1.....)

Brock
11-02-2005, 10:50 AM
What's wrong with pay increase for teachers? :shrug:

Is there a shortage?

Rain Man
11-02-2005, 10:50 AM
What's wrong with pay increase for teachers? :shrug:

In part, I'm just anti-tax right now given some unrelated issues that I've seen. I've hit my limit on paying taxes. In other part, I read that the average high school teacher is now making over $50,000 a year for nine months of work, and that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

As another note/clarification, I think the new tax is for performance-based bonuses for teachers. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with paying more taxes. I'm taxed up to my eyebrows right now.

Have I mentioned that I'm tired of taxes?

Reaper16
11-02-2005, 10:52 AM
Is there a shortage?
F*** yes, there is. Not that I would catagorize it as a "shortage," per se, but teachers ought to be payed more, yes. [/bias, as mother is a teacher]

Demonpenz
11-02-2005, 10:53 AM
I know many burnouts. I have no really point to any of this. I would like to say that pot used in motoration doesn't really do much, but yeah if you drink every day, or smoke weed every day, or like me like to stuck model airplane glue up your nose, it is bad for you. I just am sick of those adds on TV where a person does a joint then picks up his dads gun and shoots himself

Reaper16
11-02-2005, 10:53 AM
In part, I'm just anti-tax right now given some unrelated issues that I've seen. I've hit my limit on paying taxes. In other part, I read that the average high school teacher is now making over $50,000 a year for nine months of work, and that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

As another note/clarification, I think the new tax is for performance-based bonuses for teachers. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with paying more taxes. I'm taxed up to my eyebrows right now.

Have I mentioned that I'm tired of taxes?

$50,000? Wow, most teachers in MO, outside maybe the huge districts, don't sniff that amount with a Master's degree.

Saulbadguy
11-02-2005, 10:58 AM
Teachers love to whine.

jspchief
11-02-2005, 11:00 AM
Peformance based bonuses for teachers is the worst idea this country has ever come up with.

Mr. Kotter
11-02-2005, 11:01 AM
Teachers love to whine.

I agree.

But they are also underpaid. It works out to $25-30 per hour in many places. Find someone with as important of a job, that requires the education that teachers have....that is more underpaid. I challenge you to do that.

Mr. Kotter
11-02-2005, 11:02 AM
Peformance based bonuses for teachers is the worst idea this country has ever come up with.

Certainly is one of them.

Brock
11-02-2005, 11:03 AM
F*** yes, there is. Not that I would catagorize it as a "shortage," per se, but teachers ought to be payed more, yes. [/bias, as mother is a teacher]

Colleges churn out education majors by the boatload every year. I'm not seeing it.

Rain Man
11-02-2005, 11:05 AM
Peformance based bonuses for teachers is the worst idea this country has ever come up with.

I dunno. Most districts have a very socialistic compensation system based purely on seniority, which is bogus. However, the challenge in a performance-based system is that the performance is often that of the student rather than the teacher. It penalizes teachers in poor-performing schools. Gain-sharing seems reasonable on the surface, but then it penalizes teachers in high-performing schools.

I'd love to get hired by some district to develop an entirely new compensation system that is a hybrid of the two.

Mr. Kotter
11-02-2005, 11:09 AM
Colleges churn out education majors by the boatload every year. I'm not seeing it.

Maybe where you live. Education grads are down nationwide--at a time when babyboomers are retiring.....schools are gonna be strapped to hire good teachers over the next decade or so, according to the outlooks I've seen.

Mr. Kotter
11-02-2005, 11:10 AM
I dunno. Most districts have a very socialistic compensation system based purely on seniority, which is bogus. However, the challenge in a performance-based system is that the performance is often that of the student rather than the teacher. It penalizes teachers in poor-performing schools. Gain-sharing seems reasonable on the surface, but then it penalizes teachers in high-performing schools.

I'd love to get hired by some district to develop an entirely new compensation system that is a hybrid of the two.

Exactly right. It would be a challenge, but something needs to be done.

jspchief
11-02-2005, 11:13 AM
I dunno. Most districts have a very socialistic compensation system based purely on seniority, which is bogus. However, the challenge in a performance-based system is that the performance is often that of the student rather than the teacher. It penalizes teachers in poor-performing schools. Gain-sharing seems reasonable on the surface, but then it penalizes teachers in high-performing schools.

I'd love to get hired by some district to develop an entirely new compensation system that is a hybrid of the two.I agree that the purely senority based system that exists now is flawed.

But IMO, performance based pay will only widen the education gap between the rich and the poor.

A teacher has only a limited control over how a student performs. Parents, upbringing, homelife are all more important factors. It doesn't matter how well a teacher presents the knowledge if the child hasn't been brought up to value that knowledge. The whole problem with this issue is parents want to blame teachers, when 99% of the time, the parents are the ones to blame.

So in the low income districts, where so many parents set bad examples or aren't around to set any example, children are already at a disadvantage. A great teacher probably won't get near the success from them as they would from a more affluent district. So the great teachers migrate to the rich neighborhoods, the mediocre teachers go to the middle income neighborhoods, and the poor neighborhoods get the leftovers.

Rain Man
11-02-2005, 11:16 AM
This is not intended to be a smack on teachers, because every profession has their share of clueless people, but I have to share a little story.

An acquaintance of mine several years back was a teacher, and was considering teaching in another state. Apparently, you have to take a test to get accredited in a new state. I didn't see her for a while, and when I eventually did so, I asked her if she was moving. She said, "No. There's just no way. That test was ridiculous. I mean, just as an example, one of the questions was, 'In what year did the Civil War end?' And they wanted an actual year! Who in the world remembers stuff like the actual year that the Civil War ended! And it wasn't even like the choices they gave were a long time apart. They were all in the 1800s."

Pants
11-02-2005, 11:18 AM
I know my highschool had trouble finding new teachers...

Also, marijuana is a much better alternative to alcohol for the reasons that have been discussed here a 1000 times. I still don't understand why people have this outlook on it. It does make you lazier but only for about 40 minutes. If you get wasted, you can't really do anything constructive either, in fact, you become destructive. I don't see how voting to legalize possession is a bad thing, Rain Man...

Rain Man
11-02-2005, 11:19 AM
I know my highschool had trouble finding new teachers...

Also, marijuana is a much better alternative to alcohol for the reasons that have been discussed here a 1000 times. I still don't understand why people have this outlook on it. It does make you lazier but only for about 40 minutes. If you get wasted, you can't really do anything constructive either, in fact, you become destructive. I don't see how voting to legalize possession is a bad thing, Rain Man...


Well, keep in mind that I support alcohol prohibition, too. Perhaps I'm more conservative than most on this issue.

Pants
11-02-2005, 11:21 AM
This is not intended to be a smack on teachers, because every profession has their share of clueless people, but I have to share a little story.

An acquaintance of mine several years back was a teacher, and was considering teaching in another state. Apparently, you have to take a test to get accredited in a new state. I didn't see her for a while, and when I eventually did so, I asked her if she was moving. She said, "No. There's just no way. That test was ridiculous. I mean, just as an example, one of the questions was, 'In what year did the Civil War end?' And they wanted an actual year! Who in the world remembers stuff like the actual year that the Civil War ended! And it wasn't even like the choices they gave were a long time apart. They were all in the 1800s."

Yeah, I have some personal experiences with stupid young teachers as well. They are pretty much the same as TA's in college. You ask them a question and they answer you with a completely unrelated statement quoted from the textbook. I've had some very knowledgeable teachers in high school, but a lot weren't so smart... It's refreshing to have professors who know what they're talking about.

Pants
11-02-2005, 11:23 AM
Well, keep in mind that I support alcohol prohibition, too. Perhaps I'm more conservative than most on this issue.

Have you ever smoked marijuana?

Rain Man
11-02-2005, 11:25 AM
Have you ever smoked marijuana?


Nope. No drugs, no tobacco, never been drunk, and try not to take medicine of any kind if I don't have to. My body is a temple. A temple that's of low architectural aesthetic appeal, but a temple nonetheless.

jspchief
11-02-2005, 11:26 AM
This is not intended to be a smack on teachers, because every profession has their share of clueless people, but I have to share a little story.

An acquaintance of mine several years back was a teacher, and was considering teaching in another state. Apparently, you have to take a test to get accredited in a new state. I didn't see her for a while, and when I eventually did so, I asked her if she was moving. She said, "No. There's just no way. That test was ridiculous. I mean, just as an example, one of the questions was, 'In what year did the Civil War end?' And they wanted an actual year! Who in the world remembers stuff like the actual year that the Civil War ended! And it wasn't even like the choices they gave were a long time apart. They were all in the 1800s."Did she teach at a level that addressed history that in depth? I wouldn't neccessarily expect my daughter's first grade teacher to know that, or feel that she needs to know that. Nor would I expect an 8th grade math teacher to know it.

With the ever increasing specialized endorsements that the government forces teachers to get, they can no longer be the jack of all trades that Mrs. Smith on Little House on the Prairie was.

Right now, my wife is is forced to take a college class to learn to write alternative assessments for special education students, so that they can be exempted from the No Child Left Behind legislated goals. Instead of getting one step closer to a master's in her field, she's learning to navigate government red tape.

She teaches at a school that requires an IQ below 60 to get in, but we have to spend our own hard earned money on a college course that allows her to tell the government that her students can't read, and that's why they are "Left Behind".

Brock
11-02-2005, 11:29 AM
Did she teach at a level that addressed history that in depth? I wouldn't neccessarily expect my daughter's first grade teacher to know that, or feel that she needs to know that. Nor would I expect an 8th grade math teacher to know it.


IMO, a high school graduate ought to be able to answer that question.

Rain Man
11-02-2005, 11:30 AM
Did she teach at a level that addressed history that in depth? I wouldn't neccessarily expect my daughter's first grade teacher to know that, or feel that she needs to know that. Nor would I expect an 8th grade math teacher to know it.



She was an elementary school teacher, but I guess I view that as one of the "100 facts that every American should know." (Oooh, hey. Good thread concept.)

Too bad about your wife's stuff. The No Child Left Behind is a concept that sounds good at high abstract levels, but seems to have tons of problems in implementation.

jspchief
11-02-2005, 11:31 AM
IMO, a high school graduate ought to be able to answer that question.When I graduated high school, I could answer that question.

14 years later, I couldn't even ballpark it, and can't possibly come up with a reason why I would care.

Pants
11-02-2005, 11:34 AM
Nope. No drugs, no tobacco, never been drunk, and try not to take medicine of any kind if I don't have to. My body is a temple. A temple that's of low architectural aesthetic appeal, but a temple nonetheless.
I have the same outlook, except not to the same extent. But you should really try to smoke some marijuana before you put it in the same category as alcohol. Reading a book or watching your favorite movie high is a whole new experience. Listening to music is amazing as well, as you can experience a synethsesia of sorts, you can see, hear and literally feel the music at the same time.

Brock
11-02-2005, 11:35 AM
When I graduated high school, I could answer that question.

14 years later, I couldn't even ballpark it, and can't possibly come up with a reason why I would care.

Huh - I view that kind of attitude as pretty weird. :shrug: JMO

mike_b_284
11-02-2005, 11:38 AM
1868 if I remember correctly, and I do insurance management

Rain Man
11-02-2005, 11:44 AM
Okay, maybe my story wasn't so interesting after all.

jspchief
11-02-2005, 11:46 AM
Huh - I view that kind of attitude as pretty weird. :shrug: JMOThe year the Civil War ended? That's a trivial fact IMO. It's a number that holds no intellectual value other than a green wedge in trivial pursuit.

I think it would be a lot more important to know why the Civil War started, the politics around the division of the North and South, and why it ended.

I've always felt that the concentration on dates in the teaching of history simply promoted learning by rote, rather than understanding the signifigance of the history being taught. What difference does it make if it was 1835 or 1865, as long as you have a general understanding of the time period in which it happened?

Saulbadguy
11-02-2005, 11:47 AM
1870? Hell, I have no clue.

Demonpenz
11-02-2005, 11:49 AM
a green square on trivial pursuit. Damn that was funny and to the point

Brock
11-02-2005, 11:54 AM
The year the Civil War ended? That's a trivial fact IMO. It's a number that holds no intellectual value other than a green wedge in trivial pursuit.

I think it would be a lot more important to know why the Civil War started, the politics around the division of the North and South, and why it ended.

I've always felt that the concentration on dates in the teaching of history simply promoted learning by rote, rather than understanding the signifigance of the history being taught. What difference does it make if it was 1835 or 1865, as long as you have a general understanding of the time period in which it happened?

I have a hard time believing anyone could have a serious understanding of it, or could have done much reading on it, without the dates seeping into the brain. Again, JMO.

Rain Man
11-02-2005, 11:55 AM
I've always felt that the concentration on dates in the teaching of history simply promoted learning by rote, rather than understanding the signifigance of the history being taught. What difference does it make if it was 1835 or 1865, as long as you have a general understanding of the time period in which it happened?

While perhaps the exact date is trivial, I think one of the great values of history, and one of the hardest things to teach since it's overarching, is the interrelationships between historical events, and for that, a knowledge of date is critical.

For example, we know about the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, but one of the critical bits of knowledge is that the French sold it because Napoleon had his eyes focused on Europe instead and was throwing all of his resources there. Events in Europe that are unrelated on their surface suddenly loom large when you see that they were happening simultaneously. American history was changed radically, and it was changed for many reasons that had nothing to do with American history. Can you know these things without knowing dates? Perhaps. But the dates make it much, much easier.

mike_b_284
11-02-2005, 11:59 AM
JPSCHIEF
while it may be trivial, a teacher in this country should know it, along with the other things you brought up.

Also, the subject taught shouldn't matter. They should all have a well rounded education.

Pants
11-02-2005, 12:01 PM
JPSCHIEF
while it may be trivial, a teacher in this country should know it, along with the other things you brought up.

Also, the subject taught shouldn't matter. They should all have a well rounded education.

Maybe in an elementary school. In highschool, a Calculus 2 teacher doesn't have to know the dates when Civil War started or ended.

Inspector
11-02-2005, 12:01 PM
1. If cops use the extra time they gain from not worrying about weed to catch dangerous criminals, this is a good law.

2. I know a lot of people that use marijuana, and all of them have been dumbed down from years of use. This statement is going to piss off a lot of stoners, but that is only because you took too many tokes and are too dumb to realize I am right. If all the kids coming out of college are allowed to be pot heads, it is going to make it easier to keep my job.

I don't really know anyone who uses the stuff, but my understanding would agree with what you said. I have no doubt about it "dumbing" people down.

I just hate for my crime fighting dollars to be wasted trying to control what someone wants to do to themselves - no matter how stupid they may be and no matter how dumb their personal choices are.

Just use the money to stop criminals.

Why is it this seems so basic but so many people tend to confuse the issue? Or at least it seems that way.

jspchief
11-02-2005, 12:05 PM
While perhaps the exact date is trivial, I think one of the great values of history, and one of the hardest things to teach since it's overarching, is the interrelationships between historical events, and for that, a knowledge of date is critical.

For example, we know about the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, but one of the critical bits of knowledge is that the French sold it because Napoleon had his eyes focused on Europe instead and was throwing all of his resources there. Events in Europe that are unrelated on their surface suddenly loom large when you see that they were happening simultaneously. American history was changed radically, and it was changed for many reasons that had nothing to do with American history. Can you know these things without knowing dates? Perhaps. But the dates make it much, much easier.I might agree if history was actually taught in that manner, but for the most part it isn't.

And even so, I still am not convinced that knowing the exact date is as important as understanding the circumstances surrounding that date.

I feel like a I have a respectable knowledge of history, for a construction worker 14 years removed from high school. I probably know as much as the average person on the street, and more than the majority of my peers. But I'm pretty clueless when it comes to dates. Most of that knowledge is relatively worthless in real life, except for BB discussions and trivial pursuit.

Inspector
11-02-2005, 12:07 PM
Well, keep in mind that I support alcohol prohibition, too. Perhaps I'm more conservative than most on this issue.

Yeah, lets lock up everyone who do things I don't want to do. Especially if it's unhealthy or intoxicating.

We could always build more prisons, tax money has no limits.

jspchief
11-02-2005, 12:13 PM
JPSCHIEF
while it may be trivial, a teacher in this country should know it, along with the other things you brought up.

Also, the subject taught shouldn't matter. They should all have a well rounded education.My wife is a teacher. I know what classes she took to get her degree. I know the general purpose of those classes. She graduated with honors from a state university, and in her short career has made steps that aren't readily accessible to all teachers in this district. She is highly respected by her peers and the parents of the students she teaches, and has served on numerous prestigous committees that are only open via invitation. In other words... she's a great teacher. Without specifically asking, I'd bet my life that she doesn't know what year the Civil War ended.

Unless you are a history teacher, I don't feel that knowledge is important. Teachers are trained in methods of educating more than general knowledge. It is important to know the subject matter that they teach, and the methods to teach it.

stevieray
11-02-2005, 12:14 PM
"drive? I don't even want to look for my keys"

Rain Man
11-02-2005, 01:16 PM
Yeah, lets lock up everyone who do things I don't want to do. Especially if it's unhealthy or intoxicating.

We could always build more prisons, tax money has no limits.


Do you think that alcohol has a net positive impact on society? Or even on tax dollars? How about marijuana?

Saulbadguy
11-02-2005, 01:17 PM
If we eliminated everything that had a negative impact on society, we'd have nothing that would impact us in a positive manner.

Bob Dole
11-02-2005, 01:20 PM
Pot and education are both over rated.

DonJaun
11-02-2005, 07:16 PM
I live in Lakewood and we passed 2a that is another money grab by local Government. Im pissed that C passed but at least it expires in 5 yrs. We have got to keep our eyes open cause i know they will try to extend it. The pot issue in Denver im glad passed. Its time we move on to make it legal through the state. Its not the pot heads you have to worry about stealing anything. Its the drunks and the coke and methheads you got to worry about. Pot heads are to lazy to work and steal. You can come up with facts all you want about pot smokers cause most facts are just someones opinion backed by investigation drawn from predetermined conclusion. Meaning if you oppose you will find facts to back your position. Same if you agree. With both side claiming the other is using twisted thinking. But as far as taxes i am very pissed. I cant believe people actualy fell for that. The teachers need more competition as well as more pay. When Colorado pass school vouchers i thought it was great. It didnt make it out of court cause our great Att. Gen Ken Salazar fought it in court. After the voters approved it. I dont like that jerk just for that reason.

CosmicPal
11-02-2005, 07:24 PM
Pot and education are both over rated.

You're absolutely right, 'cause over-rated is actually a single word. :D

Rain Man
11-02-2005, 07:35 PM
It didnt make it out of court cause our great Att. Gen Ken Salazar fought it in court. After the voters approved it. I dont like that jerk just for that reason.

I know several reasons to dislike Ken Salazar. I nearly voted for him in the Senate race just to get his political, dishonest carcass out of Colorado. Let him go pollute the D.C. landscape for a while. In the end, I couldn't vote for him, though. It was just too cruel to D.C.

KCFalcon59
11-02-2005, 07:52 PM
Denver sinks to new depths of stupidity.

Duh! Have they ever been anything but stupid?

Taco John
11-02-2005, 08:22 PM
http://legends.sanonofre.com/free-tommy.jpg


"Citizens have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws" -Martin Luther King

KChiefsQT
11-02-2005, 08:25 PM
But the real kicker is this: stoners, come to Denver! It is now legal to possess up to an ounce of marijuana in our fair city, thanks to a blatantly false and dishonest ad campaign that confused a bunch of low-IQ Broncos fans. ."

Medical Marijuana or just the average Joe can buy an ounce and walk down the street with it ???

kcfanXIII
11-02-2005, 08:27 PM
please refrain from talking about things you don't know anything about. there are a number of reasons for decriminalizing marijuana. and as far as them using a misleading campaign, do your research and you'll find that the senati\or that lead the charge for the marijuana tax act of 1937, used tabloid journalism to scare the senate into making it illigal. as a member of mohemp i've done my share of research into the subject, and i'm for total legaliztion.

stevieray
11-02-2005, 08:29 PM
please refrain from talking about things you don't know anything about. there are a number of reasons for decriminalizing marijuana. and as far as them using a misleading campaign, do your research and you'll find that the senati\or that lead the charge for the marijuana tax act of 1937, used tabloid journalism to scare the senate into making it illigal. as a member of mohemp i've done my share of research into the subject, and i'm for total legaliztion.

illigal?

elvomito
11-02-2005, 08:41 PM
illigal?
http://www.illigal.org/

Douche Baggins
11-02-2005, 09:17 PM
Proposition "420."

kcfanXIII
11-02-2005, 09:20 PM
ummmm, spelling definantly not my strong point. but my point is valid none the less.
a book everyone should read, "the emperor wehars no clothes" by jack herer. and yes the spelling is correct on that

Taco John
11-03-2005, 01:36 AM
See that? He can't even spell illegal, and he believes he has the right to smoke weed. Shut up and just drink beer like the rest of us, hippie!

alanm
11-03-2005, 02:56 AM
Nope. No drugs, no tobacco, never been drunk, and try not to take medicine of any kind if I don't have to. My body is a temple. A temple that's of low architectural aesthetic appeal, but a temple nonetheless.
Well, that explains it. :D

Inspector
11-03-2005, 09:55 AM
Do you think that alcohol has a net positive impact on society? Or even on tax dollars? How about marijuana?

I think there are many, many things that have a negative and positive impact on society.

I'm not really comfortable deciding what personal freedoms one should be willing to give up due to possible impacts.

This is about what consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their homes. Or, I should say, it seems that way to me.

I want people who do bad things to other people jailed.

Besides, if we start putting people in jail simply due to a percieved negative impact on society, then I would feel we need to be consistent and put everyone in jail for everything that has a percieved negative impact.

Then we'll need to decide who determines what is having a negative impact. Maybe it's a negative impact to me and not to you.

When you are thinking about this issue, try to focus on simplicity. Jail is for people who harm other people. If a person is not harming another, then jail probably shouldn't be involved.

But try, and this is what many people have trouble doing, but try to be consistent. If we jail someone for harming their body, then lets jail all people who harm their bodies. Otherwise, lets save our crime fighting $$'s for those who actually harm others.

You weren't really wanting to pay more taxes, were you? I thought I detected in one of your posts that you weren't too enthused about the tax situation. Takes extra money to house, feed, educate, provide health care, etc for all of those people who choose to harm themselves.

Also might want to consider jail terms for those who make these long ass rambling posts too.

(Sorry about that)

Rain Man
11-03-2005, 09:59 AM
please refrain from talking about things you don't know anything about. there are a number of reasons for decriminalizing marijuana. and as far as them using a misleading campaign, do your research and you'll find that the senati\or that lead the charge for the marijuana tax act of 1937, used tabloid journalism to scare the senate into making it illigal. as a member of mohemp i've done my share of research into the subject, and i'm for total legaliztion.


So I'm not allowed to speak poorly of terrorism unless I first go try to blow up an Israeli restaurant?

Katipan
11-03-2005, 10:00 AM
I know my husband always abuses me less when he's stoned.

BigChiefFan
11-03-2005, 10:02 AM
In a FREE Society everyone should have the right to CHOOSE what is right for them as long as it doesn't infringe on others. I hate the fact some think they know what is best for me. They don't.

Rain Man
11-03-2005, 10:02 AM
I understand your point, Inspector, and you've got some valid arguments there.

I just find it funny that people don't focus on the entire cost of alcohol or drugs. It's easy to say, "Putting people in jail costs money. Don't do it." but that doesn't take into account that rehab costs money, and lost productivity costs money, and drunk driving crashes cost money, etc. If we sat down and did a full 100 percent cost-benefit analysis, I'll bet that the true price of using drugs and alcohol is far more than the cost of enforcement efforts to stop usage or regulate usage.

Inspector
11-03-2005, 10:41 AM
I understand your point, Inspector, and you've got some valid arguments there.

I just find it funny that people don't focus on the entire cost of alcohol or drugs. It's easy to say, "Putting people in jail costs money. Don't do it." but that doesn't take into account that rehab costs money, and lost productivity costs money, and drunk driving crashes cost money, etc. If we sat down and did a full 100 percent cost-benefit analysis, I'll bet that the true price of using drugs and alcohol is far more than the cost of enforcement efforts to stop usage or regulate usage.

Yeah, I hear ya man.

A free society probably isn't the least expensive way to go.

Consider the costs of overweight people to society - through productivity, loss work days. Let's outlaw ice cream.

I wonder if tobacco has costs us anything? Maybe not, but it makes me wonder.

To be consistent then we would probably want to examine all things that have a cost to society and lock up anyone who has contributed to those costs. Sometimes it's the inconsistency that drives me crazy.

And as far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to rehab themsleves due to their own choices, well...I think you can guess who I would vote to pay for that. Personal responsibility (in my fantasy world) would play a role. If you goof something up - you pay for it. Including yourself.

Drunk drivers are criminals - they hurt other people. They are perfect candidates for our limited crime fighting resources. I have no problem locking up people who harm others. In fact, I'd like to reserve my crime fighting dollars to be used against those who harm others or others property.

I think drug users have a medical problem - not a legal problem.

Man, I would love to get input from some of our founding fathers about this issue and how we, as a society today, are handling this.

Clint in Wichita
11-03-2005, 10:46 AM
Denver....that explains all of those goddamn silly polls!

Rain Man
11-03-2005, 11:06 AM
I wonder if tobacco has costs us anything? Maybe not, but it makes me wonder.



There was a great incident about that a few years back. It's well-documented that tobacco-related health care costs are absolutely enormous, and that public taxpayers bear a significant part of the burden.

So the tobacco companies did a study, and they concluded that the public was overlooking a huge source of tax savings that cigarettes create. By lowering the life spans of smokers by several years on average, cigarettes avert otherwise massive expenditures on those same people from Social Security and Medicare.

The study got buried faster than a young boy in John Gacy's basement, but the truth is that it's right, and it's a valid counterargument against the folks that talk about the public's cost burden. Other than admitting that they kill people, I thought it was great. I never would've thought of that.

CosmicPal
11-03-2005, 11:14 AM
It's easy to say, "Putting people in jail costs money. Don't do it."

Prisons may cost money, but they also MAKE money. They create cheap labor in telemarketing and manufacturing- yes, it should come as no surprise that inmates have jobs and may be calling your home about aluminum siding one night. Construction of jails/prisons create jobs. The list goes on.

A vast majority of those in prisons are there because of mandatory mininum sentencing- the local and federal government won't change this fact- 'cause it's making money.

Inspector
11-03-2005, 12:10 PM
There was a great incident about that a few years back. It's well-documented that tobacco-related health care costs are absolutely enormous, and that public taxpayers bear a significant part of the burden.

So the tobacco companies did a study, and they concluded that the public was overlooking a huge source of tax savings that cigarettes create. By lowering the life spans of smokers by several years on average, cigarettes avert otherwise massive expenditures on those same people from Social Security and Medicare.

The study got buried faster than a young boy in John Gacy's basement, but the truth is that it's right, and it's a valid counterargument against the folks that talk about the public's cost burden. Other than admitting that they kill people, I thought it was great. I never would've thought of that.

Hey now, there's an interesting aspect.

Make all drugs legal and available and we'll eliminate all the druggies from society after they all O.D. We could really lower the associated costs.

You make excellent points Kevin. I enjoy discussing this issue with reasonable people.

I, like you, am also a drug free person, although a drank a beer on my 21st birthday and have used aspirin a few times. And again, like you, I am fed up with the amount of taxes I pay.

This issue is like abortion or other hot debatable topics. Everyone is pretty entrenched into their view and are not likely to alter their opinions based on anything someone says on a football message board. But maybe our discussion has given a few folks something to consider or to at least think about. We both want the same thing - a better country to live in for us and our families.

Inspector
11-03-2005, 12:15 PM
Prisons may cost money, but they also MAKE money. They create cheap labor in telemarketing and manufacturing- yes, it should come as no surprise that inmates have jobs and may be calling your home about aluminum siding one night. Construction of jails/prisons create jobs. The list goes on.

A vast majority of those in prisons are there because of mandatory mininum sentencing- the local and federal government won't change this fact- 'cause it's making money.

If you were running a manufacturing business from prison, which would you rather have in there working to make your product:

A violent uncooperative malcontent burden to society?

- or -

An average Joe who got caught with a joint?

I've heard this argument from some people as to why pot remains illegal. While I can understand the sentiment, I'm not sure I buy that, but I guess anything is possible.

Rain Man
11-03-2005, 12:57 PM
Hey now, there's an interesting aspect.

Make all drugs legal and available and we'll eliminate all the druggies from society after they all O.D. We could really lower the associated costs.

You make excellent points Kevin. I enjoy discussing this issue with reasonable people.

I, like you, am also a drug free person, although a drank a beer on my 21st birthday and have used aspirin a few times. And again, like you, I am fed up with the amount of taxes I pay.

This issue is like abortion or other hot debatable topics. Everyone is pretty entrenched into their view and are not likely to alter their opinions based on anything someone says on a football message board. But maybe our discussion has given a few folks something to consider or to at least think about. We both want the same thing - a better country to live in for us and our families.

Y'know, it's an interesting topic overall. Rausch and I had a long discussion about it about a year ago, and truthfully, he (like you) posed some good arguments for legalization. It makes me want to step back and think about how much my positions are based on learning versus merely being "what I've always thought." I'd really like to have the time to really take a detailed look at it from a big picture perspective.

I also know that my own attitudes color my opinions. For example, I think prostitution should be legalized, and many of my same arguments for that are the arguments that people use for legalizing marijuana and/or other drugs. Yet I don't buy those arguments when they're applied to drugs, because I think drugs have negative health impacts that don't really apply to prostitution. Yet those health effects do apply to Hostess Ding Dongs, and if anybody wants to take those away from me, they're going to have to pry them from my cold, dead, chubby hands.

Area 51
11-03-2005, 01:07 PM
........................REDUNDANT........................
............................./\...............................
Denver /=/=/=/=/=/=/=\=\=\=\=\=\=\ Stupidity

Inspector
11-03-2005, 01:08 PM
Y'know, it's an interesting topic overall. Rausch and I had a long discussion about it about a year ago, and truthfully, he (like you) posed some good arguments for legalization. It makes me want to step back and think about how much my positions are based on learning versus merely being "what I've always thought." I'd really like to have the time to really take a detailed look at it from a big picture perspective.

I also know that my own attitudes color my opinions. For example, I think prostitution should be legalized, and many of my same arguments for that are the arguments that people use for legalizing marijuana and/or other drugs. Yet I don't buy those arguments when they're applied to drugs, because I think drugs have negative health impacts that don't really apply to prostitution. Yet those health effects do apply to Hostess Ding Dongs, and if anybody wants to take those away from me, they're going to have to pry them from my cold, dead, chubby hands.

Yep, I don't need no dope, but God help anyone touching my Ding Dongs. And I won't even get into the damage I could do if anyone even looks the wrong way at my Twinkies.....

BTW....I think prostitution should be legal too. I see that as a zoning problem. Again, consenting adults, not hurting others, blah, blah, blah....

stevieray
11-03-2005, 01:10 PM
blah, blah, blah....

great point!

kcfanXIII
11-03-2005, 01:31 PM
first off i apologize if i make a point thats already been made.

i resent the statements that smoking grass makes you less productive. if it affects me at all, its descrimination. i use it for recreational purposes, and if i'm in a bad mood. its not to escape my problems, cause they are still right in front of me, its just to calm me down so i can objectively look at what i have to do. this doesn't make me any worse of a person than someone who takes drugs for depression, bipolar disorder, or any thing like that. its been used for a variety of purposes basically since man discovered it about 5,000 years ago. not untill companies that saw its natural products as a threat to their own manufactured products, was it made out to be the menace that our society today beleives.

anybody who calls BS on this statement can read all about it in "the emperor wears no clothes." by jack herer. it tells the story, along with a number of sources that he sited in the book.

kcfanXIII
11-03-2005, 01:34 PM
So I'm not allowed to speak poorly of terrorism unless I first go try to blow up an Israeli restaurant?

point taken, but you insulted me with the negative remarks about canibas users.

CosmicPal
11-03-2005, 01:36 PM
I also know that my own attitudes color my opinions. For example, I think prostitution should be legalized, and many of my same arguments for that are the arguments that people use for legalizing marijuana and/or other drugs. Yet I don't buy those arguments when they're applied to drugs, because I think drugs have negative health impacts that don't really apply to prostitution.

C'mon Kevin- surely you don't buy this?

Drugs have a negative health impact, but prostitution doesn't? Prostitution is a breeding ground for STD's. The numbers of STD's you can get from someone is astounding. (And yes, even if you use a condom).

I have never favored the legalization of marijuana as a freedom of choice issue. I don't care about our freedom of choice. The reason I favor it, is not for the toxic weed everyone so likes to smoke, but the hemp plant itself- the plant has amazing attributes that can be made into clothing, food, paper, furniture, you name it. It also matures in 4 months- therefore, a farmer acheives three annual yields out of his crops.

That is only one of the many reasons, but freedom of choice never sails with the majority of our country. Valid economic reasons do however...

Inspector
11-03-2005, 01:50 PM
first off i apologize if i make a point thats already been made.

i resent the statements that smoking grass makes you less productive. if it affects me at all, its descrimination. i use it for recreational purposes, and if i'm in a bad mood. its not to escape my problems, cause they are still right in front of me, its just to calm me down so i can objectively look at what i have to do. this doesn't make me any worse of a person than someone who takes drugs for depression, bipolar disorder, or any thing like that. its been used for a variety of purposes basically since man discovered it about 5,000 years ago. not untill companies that saw its natural products as a threat to their own manufactured products, was it made out to be the menace that our society today beleives.

anybody who calls BS on this statement can read all about it in "the emperor wears no clothes." by jack herer. it tells the story, along with a number of sources that he sited in the book.

Sorry - I didn't mean to insult anyone about their productivity.

There are soooo many reason this product should NOT be illegal. You make good points. Hell, my great grandmother used it for heartburn medicine. I was in my twenties before I realized that what that was. She lived to be almost 100, by the way.

I saw something on history channel awhile back that spoke to the reasons why it was made illegal. Seems that racism played a role if I recall correctly.

Rain Man
11-03-2005, 01:52 PM
point taken, but you insulted me with the negative remarks about canibas users.

I don't recall making insulting comments, unless you're the one who stole my bike. Sorry if I offended you.

stevieray
11-03-2005, 01:55 PM
. Seems that racism played a role if I recall correctly.


I think that's true with prostitution as well.

Area 51
11-03-2005, 01:56 PM
I don't recall making insulting comments, unless you're the one who stole my bike. Sorry if I offended you.

Give us a description of the bike, we'll put out a BOLO.

Better yet give us a picture.

Rain Man
11-03-2005, 01:56 PM
C'mon Kevin- surely you don't buy this?

Drugs have a negative health impact, but prostitution doesn't? Prostitution is a breeding ground for STD's. The numbers of STD's you can get from someone is astounding. (And yes, even if you use a condom).



I dunno. Prostitution as it stands now is fraught with peril, but that's because it's all underground. If it was aboveboard and regulated, the health risk would be minimal, because it's just sex.

If you did the same thing with drugs, it would still carry a health risk, because drugs inherently have health risks. Ask Len Bias.

kcfanXIII
11-03-2005, 01:56 PM
Sorry - I didn't mean to insult anyone about their productivity.

There are soooo many reason this product should NOT be illegal. You make good points. Hell, my great grandmother used it for heartburn medicine. I was in my twenties before I realized that what that was. She lived to be almost 100, by the way.

I saw something on history channel awhile back that spoke to the reasons why it was made illegal. Seems that racism played a role if I recall correctly.

racism was a TOOL used. think of this, canabis can be used to replace, paper, patrolium <spelling?>, rope <which is created now by nylon, another patrolium product.>, all products of DU PONT. so dupont wants to outlaw it. think of the time, 1937. what better way to make the public fear it than by relating it to minorities.

Rain Man
11-03-2005, 01:58 PM
Give us a description of the bike, we'll put out a BOLO.

Better yet give us a picture.


It's got two wheels, it's red, and there's a drug addict on top of it.

kcfanXIII
11-03-2005, 01:58 PM
I don't recall making insulting comments, unless you're the one who stole my bike. Sorry if I offended you.

no i did not steal your bike, maybe i misinturpeted your statements. but its not a bad thing man. if nothing else i might go to colorado for vacation now.

sedated
11-03-2005, 02:00 PM
Everything is good in proper moderation.

Rain Man
11-03-2005, 02:00 PM
no i did not steal your bike, maybe i misinturpeted your statements. but its not a bad thing man. if nothing else i might go to colorado for vacation now.

Hey, it's all coming together now. In the same election, they promoted marijuana tourism and also raised the hotel tax. The city government is going to get rich!

sedated
11-03-2005, 02:03 PM
This conversation started about pot, now it's discussing "Illegal drugs".

Pot is illegal, but don't compare it to heroin and crack.

A person can smoke a dooby at night and be perfectly productive (my...uh...friends do it).

kcfanXIII
11-03-2005, 02:04 PM
Hey, it's all coming together now. In the same election, they promoted marijuana tourism and also raised the hotel tax. The city government is going to get rich!
see and co thought it up.
did you know you can still grow hemp in the us? just with out leaves or buds.

milehighfan
11-03-2005, 02:06 PM
I have been known to harass the dominoes or pizza hut guy while smoking. Its usually because he forgot my 2 liter.

Rain Man
11-03-2005, 02:20 PM
see and co thought it up.
did you know you can still grow hemp in the us? just with out leaves or buds.

I know nothing about the hemp debate. I presume that the issues about using hemp for other purposes exists merely because it's assumed that the hemp will be diverted for smoking?

milehighfan
11-03-2005, 02:22 PM
What about the poppy seed?

HemiEd
11-03-2005, 02:24 PM
, unless you're the one who stole my bike.


ROFL OMG, LMAO

kcfanXIII
11-03-2005, 02:29 PM
I know nothing about the hemp debate. I presume that the issues about using hemp for other purposes exists merely because it's assumed that the hemp will be diverted for smoking?
i'm not going to lie, i think that the fact that i operate normally, just in a better mood, is a good argument for smoking for fun than drinking for fun. but its not just for that reason, paper made from hemp is less damaging to the enviroment. along with all the petrolium products it could replace. not to mention, you can grow hemp faster than trees, and by growing more plants, you're totally reversing the effect deforrestation is having on the enviroment by creating oxygen instead of depleteing it.

CosmicPal
11-03-2005, 02:39 PM
I presume that the issues about using hemp for other purposes exists merely because it's assumed that the hemp will be diverted for smoking?

That isn't the issue. The government isn't interested in anything it cannot make money off of. In this case, the government is VERY interested in permitting hemp farming because of the enormous potential for wealth involved.

The underlying problem is this: They will no longer be able to tell who's farming the harmless hemp from the THC hemp. A farmer could have thousands of acres of perfectly harmless hemp, but right in the middle of it, he's got a batch of marijuana. They wouldn't be able to control that aspect of the farming- that is why they did away with it.

Surely, you are aware that prescription drugs kill more people every year than recreational drugs? Just thought I'd let you know.

Rain Man
11-03-2005, 02:41 PM
Surely, you are aware that prescription drugs kill more people every year than recreational drugs? Just thought I'd let you know.


Gross or net?

Inspector
11-03-2005, 02:45 PM
That isn't the issue. The government isn't interested in anything it cannot make money off of. In this case, the government is VERY interested in permitting hemp farming because of the enormous potential for wealth involved.

The underlying problem is this: They will no longer be able to tell who's farming the harmless hemp from the THC hemp. A farmer could have thousands of acres of perfectly harmless hemp, but right in the middle of it, he's got a batch of marijuana. They wouldn't be able to control that aspect of the farming- that is why they did away with it.

Surely, you are aware that prescription drugs kill more people every year than recreational drugs? Just thought I'd let you know.

I wouldn't be surprised if the police worry that legalization would result in fewer jobs and promotions.

I used to live in a small town east of KC where the cops would plant joints in peoples cars whenever they stopped them. The more busts they made, the quicker they were considered for promotions. Promotions = more $$.

I think it being legal would allow cops to focus on criminals instead of messing with drug users. My family is still reeling from my son getting robbed in Detroit on 10/22. We were wishing the cops had gone after the bad guys instead of trying to catch the guy with a joint.....oh well, the guy with a joint was probably a lot less dangerous than the criminals....

CosmicPal
11-03-2005, 03:02 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the police worry that legalization would result in fewer jobs and promotions.

I used to live in a small town east of KC where the cops would plant joints in peoples cars whenever they stopped them. The more busts they made, the quicker they were considered for promotions. Promotions = more $$.

I think it being legal would allow cops to focus on criminals instead of messing with drug users. My family is still reeling from my son getting robbed in Detroit on 10/22. We were wishing the cops had gone after the bad guys instead of trying to catch the guy with a joint.....oh well, the guy with a joint was probably a lot less dangerous than the criminals....

Nah....society, and even the police would love nothing more than to be focusing on doing nothing more than stopping serious crime.

Let me put this another way. You know why cigarettes are still legal? Consider this: here's a product that admittedly kills people. It has no health benefit whatsoever. It is a threat to the public health. Yet why does it remain legal? Because states get a cut of cigarette sales thanks to the Big Tobacco settlement a few years back. Keeping cigarettes legal results in desperately-needed revenues for states... revenues that are almost never spent on anti-smoking campaigns, by the way.
It's a classic racket: tobacco is allowed to remain legal because powerful institutions get a cut of the action. While people die from lung cancer, states get financial resuscitation by taking a cut of every sale. States are trading your health for their revenues.

Think I'm being overly cynical? Let's take a look at gambling laws. Organized gambling is illegal at both the state and federal levels in this country. Except, of course, when the government gets a cut. Casino-friendly states didn't just make casinos legal for the good of the public: they legalized gambling in exchange for a cut of the action. It's a classic, mob-style "protection fee."

If you want to test this theory, launch your own online gambling website. You'll be shut down almost immediately and charged with serious crimes. Gambling and organized betting is illegal, didn't you know? That is, unless the state runs the show, as in state lotteries.

It's right in your face, folks: gambling is legal when powerful corporations or institutions get a piece of the action. It's illegal when they don't. It has nothing at all to do with morality, or protecting people, or doing what's right. It's all about money, pure and simple. Just ask all the corrupt politicians in Missouri who legalized riverboat gambling a few years back.

kcirnamffoh
11-03-2005, 03:04 PM
I always thought Denver was high enough already. Instead of "the mile high" it could be "the contact high". Opposing teams will now have to keep a supply of honeybuns on the sidelines. Then you'll have players running around on a "sugar high". Makes for a interesting environment ... I think I like it.

kcfanXIII
11-03-2005, 03:48 PM
That isn't the issue. The government isn't interested in anything it cannot make money off of. In this case, the government is VERY interested in permitting hemp farming because of the enormous potential for wealth involved.

The underlying problem is this: They will no longer be able to tell who's farming the harmless hemp from the THC hemp. A farmer could have thousands of acres of perfectly harmless hemp, but right in the middle of it, he's got a batch of marijuana. They wouldn't be able to control that aspect of the farming- that is why they did away with it.

Surely, you are aware that prescription drugs kill more people every year than recreational drugs? Just thought I'd let you know.

check your facts, the government is paying farmers NOT to grow it, because of the damage it would do to other industries that all "donate" a whole lot of money to politicians.
marijuana was a word used to mislead people into thinking canabis was dangerous. ever wonder why a spanish word used to describe an american "problem"? they chose marijuana because it was closely associated with minorities. remember america was still extremely racist in 1937.

CosmicPal
11-03-2005, 04:00 PM
check your facts, the government is paying farmers NOT to grow it, because of the damage it would do to other industries that all "donate" a whole lot of money to politicians.
marijuana was a word used to mislead people into thinking canabis was dangerous. ever wonder why a spanish word used to describe an american "problem"? they chose marijuana because it was closely associated with minorities. remember america was still extremely racist in 1937.

No, they're not. They are paying landowners- not farmers, but landowners. And they get paid to not grow anything- period.

DonJaun
11-03-2005, 05:13 PM
No the problem is they make more money from the drug dealers paying them off . The police get a cut by makeing the bust and takeing property. The court gets money from fines. And so on and so on. If its made legal then you just get a tax.

Taco John
11-04-2005, 01:40 AM
Gross or net?



You misspelled "neat."

Saggysack
11-04-2005, 03:14 AM
I dunno. Prostitution as it stands now is fraught with peril, but that's because it's all underground. If it was aboveboard and regulated, the health risk would be minimal, because it's just sex.

If you did the same thing with drugs, it would still carry a health risk, because drugs inherently have health risks. Ask Len Bias.

Ask Len Bias? Oh you mean the cocaine phene Len Bias. Quite a bit difference in the health risks associated with cocaine as opposed to marijuana. Wouldn't you say? I mean, one can bring death and the other just brings on a serious case of the munchies with a bit of dry mouth.

How many people have overdosed and died from marijuana use? Zero. On the same spectrum, how many people have died from overdosing on alcohol? Too many to count. Nutmeg is also legal, yet you can overdose and die from it to from an intoxicating dose. Anyway, one is illegal, supposedly because of the health risks, and the other is legal because it has been deemed an acceptable form of self medicating by society as a whole. Exactly why does alcohol get the health risk pass?

To be honest, I don't really understand the bias. I've been drunk, and I've been stoned, sadly both more times than I can count. And looking back, I can honestly say the way marijuana is portrayed as this evil little flower is just plain stupid. The health risks associated with marijuana aren't even on the same scale as alcohol. One could lead to death, the other leads you to a box of twinkies.

kcfanXIII
11-04-2005, 03:41 PM
No, they're not. They are paying landowners- not farmers, but landowners. And they get paid to not grow anything- period.
still, why do we do that?

mike_b_284
11-04-2005, 04:30 PM
There are health problems caused by pot. Especially when used by kids. Schizophreinia is exponetially more likely in people who use marijuana before age 18, it is addictive, it does lead to stronger drugs, it does have an impact on judgement, it does decrease the ability for the brain to process information, it inhibits emotional maturity, these are all proven facts. Please do the research before you disagree, and not the research done by biased groups who want to decriminalize or legalize it. Look at european studies in coutries where it is decriminalized and there is little or no bias.

CosmicPal
11-04-2005, 04:32 PM
There are health problems caused by pot. Especially when used by kids. Schizophreinia is exponetially more likely in people who use marijuana before age 18, it is addictive, it does lead to stronger drugs, it does have an impact on judgement, it does decrease the ability for the brain to process information, it inhibits emotional maturity, these are all proven facts. Please do the research before you disagree, and not the research done by biased groups who want to decriminalize or legalize it. Look at european studies in coutries where it is decriminalized and there is little or no bias.

Stop it man! You're freakin' me out.

mike_b_284
11-04-2005, 04:40 PM
I am not saying it is the worst thing, I am just saying it isn't harmless. Used responsibly, in moderation there is no problem. But heavy daily use, or kids smoking the stuff is a big deal. By being in the circles potsmokers tend to run with it opens the door for the use of other, more harmful, drugs.
IMO

CosmicPal
11-04-2005, 04:57 PM
I am not saying it is the worst thing, I am just saying it isn't harmless. Used responsibly, in moderation there is no problem. But heavy daily use, or kids smoking the stuff is a big deal. By being in the circles potsmokers tend to run with it opens the door for the use of other, more harmful, drugs.
IMO

Fact is, we are a nation of drug addicts. We drug ourselves, our elderly and our children on a daily basis. We do it with prescription medications, over-the-counter pills, alcohol, caffeine, nicotine... and we say it's all fine because those drugs are legal. But you might say that those legal drugs are different from marijuana? They're FDA-approved drugs, prescribed by a doctor. They have a medical purpose.

Oh really? Ritalin has a medical purpose? What medical symptoms does Ritalin treat, then? What measurable physiological state is addressed with Ritalin? There are none, of course. Ritalin is an authority drug. It keeps children in line. It makes teachers feel less stress and parents feel less guilt. Ritalin is a mind-altering narcotic, and yet millions of children are on it today. Its purpose is NOT to help children, but to make life more convenient for those who manage children.

You might be surprised to know a vast majority of schoolchildren today are on drugs. Drugs that alter brain chemistry to keep them docile, or free of pain, or to dilate their lungs so they could breathe easier, or of course- to keep them in line.

Add in the fact you have quite a few teachers on mind-altering substances like anti-depressants, as well as parents, and you have a crisis.

It's not just the street drugs, you see...it's everything.

mike_b_284
11-04-2005, 05:00 PM
I agree completely

Rain Man
11-04-2005, 05:25 PM
Oh really? Ritalin has a medical purpose? What medical symptoms does Ritalin treat, then? What measurable physiological state is addressed with Ritalin? There are none, of course. Ritalin is an authority drug. It keeps children in line. It makes teachers feel less stress and parents feel less guilt. Ritalin is a mind-altering narcotic, and yet millions of children are on it today. Its purpose is NOT to help children, but to make life more convenient for those who manage children.



This nation's Ritalin epidemic is very scary to me. We're raising a nation of drugged children.