User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.1935 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
It's from the future!
I don't see the point of drinking if you aren't looking for a buzz.
It's a very efficient cancer-delivery system. Maybe you really want one of those electronic voice thingies, but can't afford to buy one?
"okay, listen to this Grateful Dead album. Do you find this enjoyable?"
Personally, I'd like to see Sergeant Stadenko use this question: If you were driving cross-country, and were forced to bring a breakfast cereal mascot - who would it be?
Huh? Marinol (dronabinol) was approved for chemotherapy patients all the way back in 1985, and for AIDS suffers in 1992.
Well, I misspoke -- I meant the marijuana equivalent. I don't know much about it but my understanding is that there was no equivalent product available.
F#####g-A primey!
That said, my question is this: Cultural tradition aside, what is the justification for alcohol being legal? I mean, Prohibition was an unenforceable joke (murder and alcoholism rates went up, and among the corruption was some police actually selling confiscated liquor). And our society will never outlaw alcohol. Nor would I want it to! But what is the LOGIC behind having booze being legal while marijuana and other drugs are illegal?
Maybe some folks like the taste of beer or wine.
If you answer, "the constipated guy from the All-Bran commercial," you automatically test positive for metamucil and have to spend one night in a highway rest stop.
F#####g-A primey!
Seconded. Brilliant!
Here is a loaded topic. What is the difference?
If the resistance entails some sort of material deprivation toward anyone at all, the quantifiable negative impact outweighs the ambiguous personal gain associated with a single act of disobedience. In other words, if the crime is demonstrably victimless, the morality of it has very little weight.
Andrew,
I'm struggling with what you wrote. If you could outline with the facts of this story, it would be helpful.
This might be how someone sees this case, using the formula you proposed:
Negative impact of smoking pot, to outside parties: 0
Personal Gain of smoking pot: high (no pun intended)
Since "high>0", then, the ban against marijuana is illegitimate.
The powers that be (and have been) liked alcohol a lot, not as many liked pot.
Do I get an assist for the set-up?
Unlike pot, you can't threaten the livelihood of a timber baron by producing corn?
An analog to this would be the following:
Listen to this Pink Floyd album. Do you feel you're on the verge of discovering some deep underlying truth of the human condition but can't quite find the words to express it?
Dude. What?
Back in the day, if I was high enough I couldn't recite it forwards.
Maybe it should be, recite it backwards without giggling.
I actually agree with that syllogism. If we're evaluating whether breaking an established law is legitimate, I think it's best to eliminate the moral worth of the rebellion, as well as the personal gain, because they are subject to differing interpretations. Still, we cannot assume that the action is perfectly neutral (for the rule breaker), or else there would be no impetus to break the rule. So the conclusion of that part is an unquantifiable positive. If there is any quantifiable negative (like material deprivation), it necessarily must outweigh the unquantifiable positive. To my mind, that's the only difference in what I'm saying than just allowing any victimless crime.
Practically, I'm not saying the ban of marijuana is illegitimate, just that there's not a very strong argument against people breaking the law. I'm more concerned with people who break laws out of principle where someone is actually hurt. Their political statement or personal gain is so ambiguous and debatable that it should not carry a strong weight.
It's a very efficient cancer-delivery system. Maybe you really want one of those electronic voice thingies, but can't afford to buy one?
Actually it's an incrediblely inefficient cancer-delievery system. The active ingredian is so damn potent that it's virtually impossible to smoke enough pot to get cancer from it.
Think or a second: how long do people have to smoke cigarettes to get cancer? Usually it's guys in their 50s (or older) who started in their late teens. Say 35 years - make it 30 to round off the numbers. (Let's say he quit for 5 years worth of time over the decades)
And guys that are hooked on cigarettes, well, they smoke just about everyday, now don't they? Let's say our test case has a pretty mild habit - no Yul Brenner smoking 6 packs a day or nothin.' Let's say he only puffs about 5 cigs a day. (Note: I've never in my life meant a nicotine junkie who only smokes 5 a day, but I'm trying to use lowest possible numbers to make a point).
That's 1,825 cigarettes a year. That's over 50,000 to get cancer.
I can't imagine anyone would ever smoke that much pot. It ain't like alcohol where you build up a tolerance. One hit will get you high no matter how many times you do it. One joint/bong has more than 1 hit in it. Smoking 5 joints a day? Doable. Keeping if up for a few weeks? I know guys who did that. Keep it up for a few months? Yea, I know two guys who did that.
But that was it. Doing a drug that potent was enough to mess up their life. No, it was no Reefer Madness crap. They just didn't do anything else but smoke, breathe, and listen to Pink Floyd. They were totally non-functional as human beings. They flunked out of college, and had to recover. You couldn't hold a job like that. You couldn't make income like that. I guess you could try to subsidize it by selling the stuff but even if you didn't smoke away your own profits, you'd get busted well before the 30 year marker.
Technically it's possible to get cancer from pot, but the potency of the drug makes that impossible.
pot becomming illegal had as much to do with race and the kind of people who were using it at the time, as much as is it bad for you.
A pothead friend of mine has this conspiracy theory about how the lumber lobbyists got marijuana banned because hemp-based paper was becoming cheaper to manufacture than standard paper, so they demonized the drug and used that as a supporting argument. I can't prove it, but I'm enough of a contrarian that I will pretend it has some credence.
Really? Five a day everyday?
If so, makes that big long post a mind a big long waste of time.
that's actually the trick behind the "recite it backwards" DUI test. Its very, very hard in any situation - a sober person will probably start, try, stumble, and give up. A drunk person will work very, very hard to do it, thinking that he has to prove that he's sober. If the person tries, then he's probably drunk.
oh, and thanks to everyone for the Primey nod. I've only been posting for a couple of weeks now, but now I truly feel that I have been welcomed.
I know an industry where at a minimum one half of the top professionals use marijuana regularly. (You know where I'm going with this, NBA fans...)
It occurs to me now I'm adding nothing to this thread. I'll stop now. Sorry.
oh and you do build up a tolerence to pot, trust me on this one.
with all the bans on "secondhand smoke", is this really true?
you would be surprised who is a pot smoker and who isnt.
That part I knew. I knew guys who were productive while smoking pot everyday, but they didn't smoke that much. And they went away from it after a while.
Or maybe it was "Sex Life on the Planet Antares", IIRC, a planet that had 26 different sexes and all had to be represented in order to comsummate. The password was "Shabotar". It's incredible what gets burned into the brain.
I concur. Although I think it plateaus a lot faster than with alcohol.
In any case, we don't know how old the "juvenile" is, but if he's old enough to know marijuana from cigarettes, he's old enough to know better, regardless of wht he has been "taught."
I've known a lot of people who smoked over five a day, everyday, for years and managed to run a very successful small businesses, or otherwise doing fantastic work.
Actually, one former boss of mine was asked what our company would do if workplace testing was mandatory. He said everyone would pee into a 55 gallon drum and it would be delivered to the White House, with a note say "You figure it out".
What does it say about me that I thought the Grateful Dead Primey-nod joke was too obvious — but this one floored me?
They're both good, but I think the Grateful Dead joke struck a chord with those of us who can't stand the Grateful Dead.
I enjoyed it because the first time I came home from school and asked my dad if I could borrow American Beauty he immediately said, "Son, don't let your mother catch you doing drugs."
That's an excellent story. This has been a great thread.
Actually, Nieporent said that the decision on whether or not he should be fired should be entirely up to his employer.
- drugs
- libertarianism
- Flight of the Conchords
- medicine and endocronology
- and this expression:
I think we're done here.
Psychologically addictive, like gambling? Sure.
Right, like high fructose corn syrup, strip clubs, and fried foods.
Everything pleasurable can be psychologically addictive, because pleasure is psychologically addictive.
You can eliminate most of the smoke by vaporizing the marijuana.
Or cooking with it or making an infusion with alcohol or a fat (like butter). Although the main benefit of smoking marijuana over other delivery methods is speed of onset. If you can only keep food down for a few minutes because of nausea, food laced with THC or a THC pill will not be helpful because you'll get rid of it before you can get the positive effects. It's also easier to gauge an appropriate dosage... which is why you never hear of "marijuana overdose."
So we've got this plant. It's easy to grow. It has an incredible utility as a medicine as well as an industrial product. The problem is that nobody can profit effectively off of it if it should become legal... it's too easy to self-produce. Marijuana is cheaper to produce than almost any other plant product with any positive use; it's a weed. Even incredibly high-quality marijuana, grown under the best conditions science can manage, still carries price that is quite heavily influenced by the illegality.
Think this guy was going to drive home later? Under the influence? Of course, DMN doesn't think driving under the influence should be illegal - only actually injuring while under the influence should be (or property).
Unlike alcohol, the high and the following impairment pass relatively quickly. In many ways, it is the opposite of alcohol. The period of impairment is relatively short, yet it takes quite some time to completely rid the system of the last traces.
When you come up with an appropriate "breathalyzer" or equivalent, then you can have your legalized pot.
All a breath alcohol test does is shift the presumption from innocent to guilty. Nor is the breathylzer engaged without some reasonable suspicion of drunkenness.
You can be well below "legally drunk" and be convicted of driving under the influence (it's a harder proof for the gov't, but it happens). You can be "legally drunk" and physically unimpaired (as far as results of reaction time tests, etc.).
The way a police officer can tell if someone is too stoned to drive right now is much the same way they tell if a person is too tired to drive.
As far as I'm concerned, impaired is impaired. If you're not fit to drive, it shouldn't matter if it's because of alcohol, marijuana, or exhaustion.
If he's old enough to know it was a joint and not a cigarette, he's old enough to know better than to report a victimless crime.
After ten minutes of practice, I could recite it just as fast backwards as forwards. To this day, 20 years later, I still can. It's really not very hard. When we learn the alphabet, we usually break it down into strings of 3 to 5 letters and put these strings together. This is what I did for the backwards alphabet.
The great sadness of my life is that I have no song for my backwards alphabet. Every day I get up just too watch Elmo's World just in case, but so far no luck. Maybe today...?
Someone will come up with such a song and make a million dollars from it.
I think this fits this situation, and fits DUI convictions as well. A sports coach (of adults, mind you, and not impressionable kids0 can lose his job, because he gets a DUI?
If you boasted about your excellent moral compass, high integrity and great sense of judgement during the job interview, you have no reason to expect otherwise.
If you said that you were a drunken lout who likes nothing better than breaking a few laws for thrills, you have all right to feel wronged if you're sacked for something like that.
Marinol is not as effective as smoked marijuana, as there are many cannabinoids in marijuana that are lost when you simply use THC. It's not just about THC. Moreover, smoked marijuana allows for easy, fast dosing. Marinol is much harder to dose and oftentimes cannot be consumed by a nauseous patient.
The real question here is, why should any government have the right to put someone in jail for growing a plant on their property and then inhaling its smoke?
Last time I tried the stuff was around 20 years ago. How long does the high last?
Really? I never felt that way. I can certainly have a few drinks and function just fine, and any effect goes away pretty quickly. Maybe I just didn't have the experience, and maybe my ability to judge time was screwy, but I thought weed lasted a lot longer. YMMV.
For no fathomable reason at all, of course. And as is often the case with this sort of issue, there is no hypocrisy quite like the hypocrisy of cultural conservatives who decry the intrusion of government into private choices while supporting drug prohibition.
Same here. I haven't smoked weed in years, mostly because it seemed to screw me up for hours and hours afterwards, and leave me out-of-sorts for days.
commercial isnt gonna last long, but is cheapest, and dank is the most expensive, potant, and best you can get, it will last much longer then commeercial, but you also dont need to smoke as much
What'd you smoke out of? Take a couple of G bong hits and you can lose track of what year it is. But if you're an experienced smoker, taking hits out of a bowl, and only a bowl or two, like Dawtaem said, it's not gonna hang with you all that long. Quality, quantity, the smoking device, and your own tolerance all effect the outcome, but I'd guess that you can get high and then sober up much quicker then it would take for you to get drunk and sober up. Nothing to back this up other then my own personal experiences though.
That was generally my experience. I also found that the environment had a lot to do with it; mellow, relaxing surroundings encouraged the high to linger, but get plopped into a distracting, unpleasant circumstance and the high evaporated pretty quickly, often frustratingly so. For me, at least, the weed high was more of a mental experience, the alcohol high more a physical sensation.
Most people forget this: where does the pot come from?
Sure lots of "regular people" might grow it in their basement or in a corn field or something. But at least where I live there is a significant amount of "grow houses" and other major operations run by crime syndicates such as the Hells Angels, and other gangs/mafia type stuff.
So the real question is who does this Zerba guy buy his weed from? Even if it is a local high school kid...if you follow the chain upwards the money filters in and supports real criminals (not just regular people that grow in their basement). I've asked around about this and I would guess that a ballpark ~50% of marijuana in my area ultimately comes from the unsavory types.
You can then figure that the "weed money" helps to subsidize other operations such as prostitution, procurement of firearms, and distribution of "heavier drugs" like coke and heroin. So there is a fairly significant indirect social cost. Though you could probably use this argument to suport legalization or to support stricter laws.
The logic direction that argument leads to is legalization, period. Unsavory types don't brew bathtub gin nowdays, because there is no underground market for it. If pot was legal, the unsavory types would have no role in the pot business.
Taste? I'll have a beer every now and then, but don't really want the mood altering effects. (Admission: never been high, never been drunk. Pro-legalization of about all drugs, along with harsh punishments for DUI (Chris' comments notwithstanding).)
Calling the kid a piece of #### takes a lot of nerve.
Yeah, wtf! Maybe much of the War on Non-Prescription Drugs has been a big waste of money and time, but why in the hell would you get upset at a kid who's doing what he's been taught is the right thing?
Truly dreadful stuff like crack and crystal meth probably wouldn't exist without drug prohibition.
That's what dope will do for ya.
Yeah but usually the way to get rid of the unsavory types is to kill the demand for the product. If you go after the guys at the top, someone new will step in the next day and it will be business as usual.
If you make tougher laws at the bottom of the pyramid, targeting all the "users", less money will filter upwards. William S. Burroughs wrote that the way to stop the world's heroin industry would be to round up all the users and lock them in a room. With no money reaching the "real criminals" the supporting supply chains and operations would fizzle out.
So I do think thats a fair argument for tougher laws, its just that you aren't targeting the people that are a big societal problem, so its a little counter-intuitive. You have to justify that in order to "punish" the unsavory criminals, you do so by punishing their pocketbooks, making them take the rational choice out of the industry. To accomplish this you have to "really punish" the everyday citizens that might just happen to smoke up a little on the side, but do make the rational choice to break the law.
Actually, anti-drug campaigns usually address people who are in direct contact with drug users. And the message is to not succumb to peer pressure and rise above the influence (or some crap like that), not to go rat them out to the principal or their parents or the cops. Doing so is just a dick move, no matter how old you are. And if the kid recognized pot, either by sight or smell, he's old enough to know better. ####### scumbag.
Just like Dennis Kucinich
There's no panacea. If you try to eliminate demand, the organized crime or what have you will find another scam. After prohibition ended, bootleggers still did unsavory deeds to make more money. In the neighborhood where I work in Philadelphia, people have started to get the message about the dangers of crack, it's use has diminished substantially, and heroin is wildly popular. Other drugs will be supplied and other drugs will be used. At the same time, you're right that just eliminating the dealers would not prevent others from doing the same thing the very next day. So what is the real goal? To keep people from getting hurt, to restrict organized crime as much as possible, and to prevent widespread drug addiction. I've long believed that keeping everything legal and very controlled is the most pragmatic approach in that you could significantly reduce ODs by keeping drugs pure, track addicts better and help them recover (if they're coming to a pharmacy for the drugs, at least they're not going to pimps, thugs, and mob bosses), know where the money is coming from and going to, and put some money into treatment programs (ie- sterile syringes, perhaps methadone clinics if you believe in that sort of thing) as long as the drug use is going to be there anyway.
The joys of meth
This only makes sense if you accept that the banned action is very bad -- that is, worth banning.
Maybe this "punish the addict" argument works for heroin or crack (let's ignore treating users as an ends to a mean).
It doesn't hold up for pot, because pot isn't subject to a suitable argument for being illegal in the first place.
I'll eat this chicken breast in his honor...
Cowboy (176), what if he had been doing something else illegal - like dipping into the till (forget for a sec that the kid wouldn't necessarily know why he was taking the money - also presume he could tell the guy was an employee (a trickier point, I'll grant)). It's just as "victimless", right (in both cases, the primary victim is the employer - who I'm sure would be mighty upset if they knew the guy was doing this on company time)? Either way, he'd be ratting on the guy - would you oppose both actions equally strongly?
At that age (not sure what age it is, but - lets throw out 13) - I'd've known what it was, not turned the guy in, and not thought less of someone else who did. Kind of like now, I guess.
As has been mentioned, you don't stop 50% of the weed coming from unsavory types by getting rid of weed, because that's simply not going to happen. You also don't get rid of the unsavory types, because as has been noted, there will be plenty of people to fill that void. Both of those things are what the government has been trying to do for years. It doesn't work. At all.
The way you get the unsavory types out of the business is by letting savory types sell it legally. That's the only thing that's going to work. Until then, we keep filling up prisons with harmless pot smokers, and occasionally harmful pot dealers.
DDT, and PCBs come to mind.
I've long thought that decriminalization combined with strict regulation would be a lot better for society than criminalization. In high school, it was a lot easier for my friends and I to score some weed over buying some beer. Alcohol is regulated and you can pretty much buy it from licensed distributors. Our method for scoring beer would be to accost people walking into liquor stores and asking if they'd buy us a case. Even by asking only the most likely (unsavory) looking characters, we were rarely successful and frequently threatened that they'd call the cops. For weed we'd just have to go to the run down apartment buildings and locate the local pusherman, who had no issues with selling to 16 year olds.
Still if pot was legal, if would have to be produced and sold in a way that just as cheap as the grow ops that are in existence now. The authorities could probably produce it more efficiently, but there still is all the costs of regulation and enforcement (and at least the Canadian government would tax the hell out of it..likely the US as well I assume) and so I don't see how it could be sold in a responsible manner much cheaper than it is sold here, now (even though the criminals pay a huge cost in escaping punishment, and distribution). Though I do hear stories it is a lot more expensive in some areas in the US (if both countries legalized it would probably be another case of cheap Canadian meds flooding the US).
But if the unsavories and the authorities sold weed at roughly the same price, legalizing pot would really only drive some of the criminals out of "business," and likely replace a lot of the people that grow it at home with gro-lites and stuff in their basement, since its a lot easier to get it from the local pharmacy.
So while I haven't studied the economics of the situation, my theory is still that legalization still would not properly deal with the real criminals. Unlike alcohol, weed can be produced rather easily/cheaply. So there are a lot of "what ifs" here and I realize I am opening my self up to a lot of people poking holes into this argument.
But this all stems from your closing line: "pot isn't subject to a suitable argument for being illegal in the first place"...and while yes the substance probably shouldn't be illegal, there is a major problem with the criminal supply chain/operations of producing it, that should be illegal. The only way I could see getting rid of this would be to completely privatize the industry, without government control/excess taxation..but then the price would go way down and we would be living in a society where usage of this went waaay up.
Maybe someone needs to tell me that the system works in the Netherlands...but I've heard that not many locals smoke up, its mostly just tourists etc. and a whole (slightly) different argument
Not to pile on but, yeah, this is Econ 101 type stuff. Theoretically, if you made the punishment for drug possession incredibly severe (say, death penalty plus the death of their loved ones), I suppose that would cut back demand precipitously - until the resultant narco-states of Lower Canada and Upper Mexico crush what remained of the republic ... or something.
(Note: not to contradict my earlier comment, but I'm seriously doped up on Nyquil right now.)
It doesn't hold up for pot, because pot isn't subject to a suitable argument for being illegal in the first place.
Really, the argument for pot is only marginally different as that for crack or for heroin or meth (damn it - I wanted cold meds today and didn't have time to get something that would be, I don't know, *useful* from behind the counter) or whatever (throw in tobacco too, sure). The only difference is that it's socially acceptable for the pro-pot crowd to weave it from the rooftops.
Until then, we keep filling up prisons with harmless pot smokers, and occasionally harmful pot dealers.
What about the crackheads! Unless things have changed or I'm mistaken, it's the only drug whereby minimum sentencing laws are triggered for mere possession.
But point taken.
Dude, we'd let Phillip Morris, et al, produce it. I imagine the plant itself would cost roughly the same to grow as tobacco. So you have packaging, distribution, and advertising costs similar to tobacco. A pack of tobacco smokes goes for 5 bucks even being heavily taxed. A similar amount of marijuana cigarettes with identical packaging and same plant material using today's marijuana prices would cost MUCH more than 5 bucks. 10 times? 20 times?
My argument is that if the government wants to tax it heavy, couldn't criminals make the same product and sell it on the streets/high schools etc. like they do right now for a lower price than the government? With today's high cigarette prices I've even seen both stolen and native reserve cigarettes sold on the streets here. I don't think there is enough incentive to make everyone want to buy it from the authorities, when currently there is adequate infrastructure set up, and if there is the incentive of a lower price from the dealer you have always bought it from.
I know there are economic ways of bringing up/down the price of a controlled product...it would have have a lot of tinkering, but yeah, it would shift the punishment nearly squarely on the dealers/criminals. But the enforcement of this would still bring a fairly high cost to society, so its not like legalizing would usher in an golden age of laid back, carefree living, without a similar fairly high cost to society.
Pot probably shouldn't be illegal, but not agreeing with a law is NOT a valid excuse for breaking it. I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who gets busted. They knew the law, and they knew the consequences if they got caught. If they choose to do it anyway, well then they're accepting the risk and whatever happens because of it.
Would you have sympathy for someone who blows their paychecks in casino's every weekend and then complains that they don't have any money? I sure wouldn't, and I don't see much difference here. Whether or not reefer SHOULD be legal is completely irrelevant.
The difference being, with tobacco, you smoke the leaf. With marijuna, you smoke the flower. The key to modern marijuana production, is that the growers, once moved underground, (or indoors, if you will), have discovered, that denying the female flower, male pollination, will continue to grow to enormous size. Thus, if legalized, marijuna cultivation, will result in a boon for the currently beleagured builders; outdoor plants being more susceptible to pollination.
Tobacco is easy to grow, and is taxed highly by the gov't; where are the small-time cigarette sellers? They're driven out of the market by the large producers.
Such an argument suggests you might be high. :-) Seriously, there is just no economic weight behind this agument.
With today's high cigarette prices I've even seen both stolen and native reserve cigarettes sold on the streets here.
And they operate at the infintesimal margins of the cigarette market. 99.9% of cigs that are sold are produced by legal, mainstream producers and sold through leagl, mainstream channels
I don't think there is enough incentive to make everyone want to buy it from the authorities, when currently there is adequate infrastructure set up, and if there is the incentive of a lower price from the dealer you have always bought it from.
Did such a dynamic apply when alcohol was re-legalized in 1933?
There is simply no sensible economic argument against the legalization of marijuana. None.
EDIT - I agree with Treder.
Precisely. The indoors vs. outdoors issue wouldn't be even close to a disadvantage for large-scale, legal producers.
I weep for our country.
Corporations could grow this way also and still have huge economies of scale.
At best (for the current growers), the market would be similar to the American beer market. You'd have the blander, weaker, widely sold brands sold at 7-11 representing a majority of sales. The current growers could be local or regional growers as boutique weed. But even if the current growers continue, its not the act of growing the current crop that we want to eliminate. It's what they do with the crop once they harvest, the sales channels and additional problems it creates. The grower will simply install a sales window on the front of his large growing shed, get licensed by the government and become a law-abiding, tax-paying enterprise.
I'm with Dr. S. Thoreau violated the law to protest the Mexican War. He took his lumps, which were nothing compared to what the SNCC/SCLC civil rights workers took.
Break the law, accept your punishment for breaking the law as unjust. However, I find smoke-ins to be more silly than meaningful. The moral high ground that "the peeps have a right to get stoned" just doesn't resonate as meaningfully as, say, civil rights.
EDIT - Ok, maybe not exactly the same, but both are instances of unjust government contols.
Heh. You said high ground.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main