I have admitted on these boards before that I have never used pot. I don't think it made anyone think any less of me.
In college, when I could've smoked weed if I'd wanted to, I was not interested in smoking or drinking alcohol. I was there to get my degree and that's what I did. Not to say that I didn't have any fun at all, but my father is an alcoholic, and for a long time I was afraid that any alcohol use would make ME an alcoholic, too, and I really wanted that college education. I have since grown a little and I understand that, while alcoholism is hereditary, it doesn't quite work the way I thought it did.
In Tennessee, I was not interested in smoking weed. Mostly because the only person that I really knew who could get it for us was a pot head dealer living in a trailer park, and he took all manner of pills in addition to smoking copious amounts of weed. I didn't want anything to do with him, and I was afraid to get anything from him, since I would have no idea if he'd laced it with anything or not. He was always trying to get my husband to smoke out with him.
Now that I'm away from that, I'm actually interested in trying it once, just to see what it's like. I don't like the idea of smoking anything, but I'd be interested in trying one of the edibles or whatever you crazy kids call it these days.
As for our ballot questions:
1. An amendment to the HI constitution to assist dam and reservoir owners. The purpose of this Act is to authorize the State to issue special purpose revenue bonds and use the proceeds from the bonds to assist dam and reservoir owners.
2. An amendment to the HI constitution authorizing the chief justice of the state supreme court to appoint retired judges to serve as emeritus judges.
Changes to the HI County charter:
Proposal No. 1: Records and Meetings Open to the Public
Proposal No. 2: Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Fund
Proposal No. 3: Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Maintenance Fund
Proposal No. 4: Establishing Special Funds
Proposal No. 5: Eligibility for Redistricting Commissioners to be Candidates for County Council
Proposal No. 6: Establishing a Game Management Advisory Commission
Pretty boring sh*t.
Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 9:48pm by Belkira
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Besides presidential voting in November...
Besides presidential voting in November...Follow
Almalieque wrote:
What is the purpose of smoking marijuana that can't be duplicated by a legal drug that doesn't give you a buzz?
Almalieque wrote:
The point was that "not doing drugs" is not something you tend to "admit to" in the same sense that we admit to things in society. You make it seem like not smoking marijuana is like being a virgin.
EDIT: because I'm typing-tarded today.
Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 9:09pm by Bijou
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
WHY do you guys keep responding to Alma??
Almalieque wrote:
stupid wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
But why would want to smoke marijuana?
"How is Babby Formed?"
haha your dumb is showing through
You should zip up, cause your dumb is showing through!
just so you get the context. It is your dumb, you own it, you use it (quite regularly) and I think you do it unintentionally.
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Nadenu wrote:
WHY do you guys keep responding to Alma??
Because +1
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Nadenu wrote:
WHY do you guys keep responding to Alma??
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Friar Bijou wrote:
Other, more enlightened countries realized this some time ago. In Canada they have, for those suffering from MS and similar disorders a sublingual THC spray that provides the pain-killing benefit while minimizing the buzz. There's no reason the same can't happen here except the pharm companies fighting tooth and nail to keep canabiods away from the population lest they lose profits.
Dronabinol says hi. Granted it's not for nerve pain, but it is a cannabinoid.
Edited, Nov 4th 2012 4:43pm by Turin
Bijou wrote:
The only legal drugs on the market that have a reasonable chance at affecting nerve pain have the fun side effect (among others) of bloating one up into a land whale which leads to other fun stuff like diabetes, etc., so, no thanks. Other, more enlightened countries realized this some time ago. In Canada they have, for those suffering from MS and similar disorders a sublingual THC spray that provides the pain-killing benefit while minimizing the buzz. There's no reason the same can't happen here except the pharm com[panies fighting tooth and nail too keep canabiods away from the population lest they lose profits.
That's cool and all if the fight for legalizing marijuana was purely in the extreme cases where marijuana proved to be the best solution. We all know that isn't the case. If that were the case, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Bijou wrote:
NO. The point is that as a non-user you have no business talking about its effects because you have no frame of reference. See, I'm not black. On an intelectual level I suppose I could talk all day about what its like to be black, but 99% of what I say is likely to be bullsh*t because, y'know....I'M NOT BLACK. Get it now?
I get that you fail to understand. I'm not sure what's with this board in black comparisons... Being black isn't a lifestyle. There are stereotypical lifestyles that correspond to black people, but they aren't bound to it.
Anyway, back on topic. I was asking a question and you're the one who got offended. If you think for a moment that I have to get high on a particular drug in order to know it's effects on people and the communities, then you must be smoking something now.
You are defending drugs, that's cool, but to pretend that there are legitimate reasons to smoke marijuana (outside of the possible extreme scenarios) is delusional. People smoke to rebel and get high.
Nadenu wrote:
WHY do you guys keep responding to Alma??
Almalieque wrote:
Bijou wrote:
NO. The point is that as a non-user you have no business talking about its effects because you have no frame of reference. See, I'm not black. On an intelectual level I suppose I could talk all day about what its like to be black, but 99% of what I say is likely to be bullsh*t because, y'know....I'M NOT BLACK. Get it now?
I get that you fail to understand.
The failure here is not Bijou's...
BrownDuck wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Bijou wrote:
NO. The point is that as a non-user you have no business talking about its effects because you have no frame of reference. See, I'm not black. On an intelectual level I suppose I could talk all day about what its like to be black, but 99% of what I say is likely to be bullsh*t because, y'know....I'M NOT BLACK. Get it now?
I get that you fail to understand.
The failure here is not Bijou's...
So profound, go on...
Quote:
So profound, go on...
"I'm a great believer that any tool that enhances communication has profound effects in terms of how people can learn from each other, and how they can achieve the kind of freedoms that they're interested in. Unless Alma is using said tools of communication, then society becomes dumbed down as a whole."
- Bill Gates
(Paraphrased)
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Friar Bijou wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
WHY do you guys keep responding to Alma??
Well, ok then. Carry on!
Spoonless wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
WHY do you guys keep responding to Alma??
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
My local sample ballot
Measure 3= I voted Yes, being as this is an agricultural type state, and I want there to some day be some sort of Marijuana reform laws. Though this measure doesn't state it now, it could in the future. I want to protect the rights of said farmers.
Measure 4= I voted No. Almost all businesses (bars included) are already smoke free. Some have built 'smoking areas' outside to accommodate the people who still do smoke. I do not want to take my dog to the dog park, if I'm not allowed to have a cigarette while she plays for an hour.
Measure 5= I also voted Yes, though many people (Vets included) are saying to vote NO, because it doesn't concern cases of neglect, and they want a more 'detailed' law on the books to include more acts that would fit under this section. I still think my vote will work.
..As to the other measures on the ballot (and the ones listed already), my vote is that of the liberal/independant so there are many, many, republicans in this area to cancel out my vote on those issues so I just dont care. Higher taxes sounds fine.
Measure 3= I voted Yes, being as this is an agricultural type state, and I want there to some day be some sort of Marijuana reform laws. Though this measure doesn't state it now, it could in the future. I want to protect the rights of said farmers.
Measure 4= I voted No. Almost all businesses (bars included) are already smoke free. Some have built 'smoking areas' outside to accommodate the people who still do smoke. I do not want to take my dog to the dog park, if I'm not allowed to have a cigarette while she plays for an hour.
Measure 5= I also voted Yes, though many people (Vets included) are saying to vote NO, because it doesn't concern cases of neglect, and they want a more 'detailed' law on the books to include more acts that would fit under this section. I still think my vote will work.
..As to the other measures on the ballot (and the ones listed already), my vote is that of the liberal/independant so there are many, many, republicans in this area to cancel out my vote on those issues so I just dont care. Higher taxes sounds fine.
Things I sometimes play...
"What do you want to be when you grow up?"
"I want to be a unicorn!"
"Awww, why's that?"........
"So I can stab people with my face."
"What do you want to be when you grow up?"
"I want to be a unicorn!"
"Awww, why's that?"........
"So I can stab people with my face."
Quote:
Initiated Constitutional Measure No. 3
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Section 29 of
Article XI of the North Dakota Constitution is
created and enacted as follows:
Section 29. The right of farmers and
ranchers to engage in modern farming and
ranching practices shall be forever
guaranteed in this state. No law shall be
enacted which abridges the right of farmers
and ranchers to employ agricultural
technology, modern livestock production and
ranching practices.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Section 29 of
Article XI of the North Dakota Constitution is
created and enacted as follows:
Section 29. The right of farmers and
ranchers to engage in modern farming and
ranching practices shall be forever
guaranteed in this state. No law shall be
enacted which abridges the right of farmers
and ranchers to employ agricultural
technology, modern livestock production and
ranching practices.
That seems kinda silly to be a constitutional amendment. What if the farmers want to use some kind of modern practice that involves dumping pesticides everywhere, or allowing genetically modified crops to blow away and cross-pollinate with natural ones? You wouldn't be able to legislate it because it would be in the constitution. Or so it seems based on a cursory reading.
trickybeck wrote:
Quote:
Initiated Constitutional Measure No. 3
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Section 29 of
Article XI of the North Dakota Constitution is
created and enacted as follows:
Section 29. The right of farmers and
ranchers to engage in modern farming and
ranching practices shall be forever
guaranteed in this state. No law shall be
enacted which abridges the right of farmers
and ranchers to employ agricultural
technology, modern livestock production and
ranching practices.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Section 29 of
Article XI of the North Dakota Constitution is
created and enacted as follows:
Section 29. The right of farmers and
ranchers to engage in modern farming and
ranching practices shall be forever
guaranteed in this state. No law shall be
enacted which abridges the right of farmers
and ranchers to employ agricultural
technology, modern livestock production and
ranching practices.
That seems kinda silly to be a constitutional amendment. What if the farmers want to use some kind of modern practice that involves dumping pesticides everywhere, or allowing genetically modified crops to blow away and cross-pollinate with natural ones? You wouldn't be able to legislate it because it would be in the constitution. Or so it seems based on a cursory reading.
It strikes me that this is EXACTLY what they are trying to do.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
trickybeck wrote:
Quote:
Initiated Constitutional Measure No. 3
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Section 29 of
Article XI of the North Dakota Constitution is
created and enacted as follows:
Section 29. The right of farmers and
ranchers to engage in modern farming and
ranching practices shall be forever
guaranteed in this state. No law shall be
enacted which abridges the right of farmers
and ranchers to employ agricultural
technology, modern livestock production and
ranching practices.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Section 29 of
Article XI of the North Dakota Constitution is
created and enacted as follows:
Section 29. The right of farmers and
ranchers to engage in modern farming and
ranching practices shall be forever
guaranteed in this state. No law shall be
enacted which abridges the right of farmers
and ranchers to employ agricultural
technology, modern livestock production and
ranching practices.
That seems kinda silly to be a constitutional amendment. What if the farmers want to use some kind of modern practice that involves dumping pesticides everywhere, or allowing genetically modified crops to blow away and cross-pollinate with natural ones? You wouldn't be able to legislate it because it would be in the constitution. Or so it seems based on a cursory reading.
Anyone remember the original Night of the Living Dead and the *zombies hatching out of the pods that come from creaky old farm fields?
*we didn't call them zombies back then - they were just 'living dead'.
Edited, Nov 5th 2012 7:43pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
trickybeck wrote:
Quote:
Initiated Constitutional Measure No. 3
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Section 29 of
Article XI of the North Dakota Constitution is
created and enacted as follows:
Section 29. The right of farmers and
ranchers to engage in modern farming and
ranching practices shall be forever
guaranteed in this state. No law shall be
enacted which abridges the right of farmers
and ranchers to employ agricultural
technology, modern livestock production and
ranching practices.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Section 29 of
Article XI of the North Dakota Constitution is
created and enacted as follows:
Section 29. The right of farmers and
ranchers to engage in modern farming and
ranching practices shall be forever
guaranteed in this state. No law shall be
enacted which abridges the right of farmers
and ranchers to employ agricultural
technology, modern livestock production and
ranching practices.
That seems kinda silly to be a constitutional amendment. What if the farmers want to use some kind of modern practice that involves dumping pesticides everywhere, or allowing genetically modified crops to blow away and cross-pollinate with natural ones? You wouldn't be able to legislate it because it would be in the constitution. Or so it seems based on a cursory reading.
I would assume it doesn't supersede other laws. So the farmer can dump pesticides anywhere they want as long as they don't get on someone elses property run-off or seep into waters of the state, exceed any air pollution limits, and the resulting veggies are labeled as 'TOXIC'.
But still it doesn't seem like it should be a constitutional thing.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
There are seven questions on the Maryland ballot. I voted last Friday.
Questions 1 and 2 deal with wither Orphan Court Judges in P.G. and Baltimore Co. should have law degrees. Both require amendments to the State Constitution, so the whole state electorate has a say on these local issues. No brainier that this was a yes vote
Question 3 deals with when we can remove a lawmaker from office if charged and convicted of certain crimes. Current law lets a lawmaker stay in office is suspended and only removed from office when conviction becomes final. Under the addended law, an elected official is suspended when found guilty and is removed when the conviction becomes final or the official pleads guilty or no contest. After we had P.G. elected official stay in office until she was sentence, this was an easy Yes.
Question 4 was if we want to allow children who been where illegally and fulfilled state requirement for HS diploma to be able to attend state college at the in-state tuition rate. Yes vote
Question 5 requires that the 8 Congressional districts be determine by the latest census figures. yes
Question 6 is to allow Same Sex Marriage in Maryland. Big Yes vote as it's the one issue I hope to see pass.
Question 7 Is to allow table games, increase the number of video games and allow another video gaming parlor in P.G. Co. I was iffy on this and think my vote cancel out Jonwin's.
Rest of the ballot was bond issues and wither Baltimore City should elect it's major and city council members on the same year as the general election. Liberal as I'm with spending other peoples money I voted yes to the bonds and held my nose on the election since my yes means the current office holder get an extra year in office.
Questions 1 and 2 deal with wither Orphan Court Judges in P.G. and Baltimore Co. should have law degrees. Both require amendments to the State Constitution, so the whole state electorate has a say on these local issues. No brainier that this was a yes vote
Question 3 deals with when we can remove a lawmaker from office if charged and convicted of certain crimes. Current law lets a lawmaker stay in office is suspended and only removed from office when conviction becomes final. Under the addended law, an elected official is suspended when found guilty and is removed when the conviction becomes final or the official pleads guilty or no contest. After we had P.G. elected official stay in office until she was sentence, this was an easy Yes.
Question 4 was if we want to allow children who been where illegally and fulfilled state requirement for HS diploma to be able to attend state college at the in-state tuition rate. Yes vote
Question 5 requires that the 8 Congressional districts be determine by the latest census figures. yes
Question 6 is to allow Same Sex Marriage in Maryland. Big Yes vote as it's the one issue I hope to see pass.
Question 7 Is to allow table games, increase the number of video games and allow another video gaming parlor in P.G. Co. I was iffy on this and think my vote cancel out Jonwin's.
Rest of the ballot was bond issues and wither Baltimore City should elect it's major and city council members on the same year as the general election. Liberal as I'm with spending other peoples money I voted yes to the bonds and held my nose on the election since my yes means the current office holder get an extra year in office.
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
My least favorite is the judge retention questions. Does anyone really have an intelligent reply to whether Stanley Wulpak should be retained as judge in the county's second district court? I mean, aside from Stanley's mom and maybe the guy whose speeding ticket wasn't dismissed by Wulpak even though he had a great excuse.
Edited, Nov 5th 2012 1:09pm by Jophiel
Edited, Nov 5th 2012 1:09pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
My least favorite is the judge retention questions. Does anyone really have an intelligent reply to whether Stanley Wulpak should be retained as judge in the county's second district court? I mean, aside from Stanley's mom and maybe the guy whose speeding ticket wasn't dismissed by Wulpak even though he had a great excuse.
I take the newspaper into the booth with me that gives judge recommendations (the Tribune does it anyway). Sure, it's somewhat based on the paper's biases, but it's better than not voting at all and letting judges be retained indefinitely.
Some of the questions on my ballot I thought about voting "Yes" for I am now reconsidering. For example, there are two amendments that involve housing tax breaks and veterans; one is for disabled veterans, the other is the for spouses of those killed in action. I had planned to vote yes on the tax breaks when it was pointed out to me that this is really more of a federal issue than a state one; the veterans involved wouldn't only be Floridian vets, and it's not really the place of the state to give benefits to "federal employees." Also, would this really help the most at-need veterans or widows; how many own a house in Florida? If they have the money to own a house, do they really need more of a tax break?
Now I'm not sure how to vote for these two amendments... opinions?
Now I'm not sure how to vote for these two amendments... opinions?
Jophiel wrote:
My least favorite is the judge retention questions. Does anyone really have an intelligent reply to whether Stanley Wulpak should be retained as judge in the county's second district court? I mean, aside from Stanley's mom and maybe the guy whose speeding ticket wasn't dismissed by Wulpak even though he had a great excuse.
Edited, Nov 5th 2012 1:09pm by Jophiel
Edited, Nov 5th 2012 1:09pm by Jophiel
As a rule of thumb I'll google names of people I'm not so familiar with. A lot of folks have a website or something that tells a little about them, maybe even a blurb about why they dislike their opponent or something. In cases where there's nothing to go on I have no problem coming up with some arbitrary and unimportant reason to vote for one person over another.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
The Trib says to keep the top two and doesn't mention the third. But he apparently gave a guy a six month prison term for yawning in the courtroom while the judge was giving a verdict to the guy's cousin 
Tricky, got an opinion on the IL Constitution question?
Tricky, got an opinion on the IL Constitution question?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 346
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (346)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Besides presidential voting in November...
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC