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 2.1768 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.
I weep for our country.
Seriously. There is an appalling absence of imagination, of backbone, of reason and wisdom and basic human compassion behind such a sensibility. Benjamin Franklin would weep. John Brown would weep. Martin Luther King would weep.
Fear of the law should never, ever outweigh the power of doing smart and right. Never.
Question:
Police say a juvenile told an off duty officer he saw a man smoking marijuana
If the officer was off-duty, how'd the kid know to report it to him?
Juvenile: (nudging stranger) Heh, check it out. I think that dude's smokin' a blunt. Right here in the stadium. Awesome.
Off-Duty Officer: It's good you came to me with this, son. I'm a police officer. I'll make sure that monster isn't allowed to walk the streets anymore.
Juvenile: Aw. Harsh.
I think the argument for pot is substantially different compared to crack or heroin or meth. That argument is that pot is substantially less bad for you.
Smoke too much weed, and you end up playing a lot of video games and listening to jam bands. Smoke too much heroin, or meth, or crack, and you end up like Pete Doherty.
Resonate with whom? The right is no different than that loudly touted by groups like NARAL as a basic human right: the right to control one's body.
Everyone is responsible for their own actions. And it's the actions of this rat that we're discussing. Was this guy utilizing common sense? Obviously not. Did he take a chance and put himself at risk? Absolutely. But he got fired because the rat tattled on him. The guy was stupid, but the kid was the morally reprehensible one.
Me, the person who wrote that.
The right is no different than that loudly touted by groups like NARAL as a basic human right: the right to control one's body.
I don't believe this but that's neither here nor there, the "meaningful" comparison was to a completely different group and issue.
I weep for our country.
Seriously. There is an appalling absence of imagination, of backbone, of reason and wisdom and basic human compassion behind such a sensibility. Benjamin Franklin would weep. John Brown would weep. Martin Luther King would weep.
Yeah, ol' Ben would weep at the idea of idiot stoners who light up at work actually getting caught. Why, I'm sure it would make the cover of Poor Richard's Almanack!
Lord.
You know he was an orgy-loving, alcoholic, libertine don't you?
No, I *know* we have a method of detection if they get checked.
Evidently you don't know what those words mean.
Detection and control.
What about my earlier question? Do you think booze should have been illegal pre-breathalyzers? And what do mean by "if they get checked"? It's not like everyone has to pass a breathalyzer before leaving the park. They'll only have to take the test if they're stopped for driving erratically.
I'm as pro-legalization as anyone, but I completely disagree with this.
Fairly openly smoking dope at work is completely inappropriate, dysfunctional behavior, and I think it's reasonable for a customer to complain to management about it. In this case, complaining to management meant going to security and as you pointed out, that happened to mean reporting the guy to an undercover cop. It's a travesty that the guy actually went to jail for doing it, but that's not the kid's fault.
Yes, but the problem with your analogy is that with pot the high is mcuh much much sooner. So that it doesn't last as long isn't particularly relevant.
Sort of.
So you are opposed to DUI laws because there are a few incidents where they fail?
First, there is intent. When you get high and drive, you intend on committing a crime. When you drive, but happen to be too tired, that's different. DMN claims we don't arrest people for things they "might" do, but I'd suggest a person with a few kilos of cocaine is arrsted for intent to distribute every day. there are plenty of "intent" crimes.
What about fit to work? How do you determine that? We did all this in the PETCO thread.
Impaired judgment is impaired judgment, but if I make a mistake at work because I am tired, that's simply not the same as if I made the mistake because I was drunk or high. Intentional impairment and then proceeding to endanger others should be a crime - whether or not you have to kill anyone first or not.
Ben Franklin would be so proud of them.
Of course it is, assuming that you had control over how tired you were when you made the mistake.
You can't make everything illegal that would potentially impair a driver without being easily detected. There are a lot of legal prescription medications out there that will impair you as much as alcohol does. I'm guessing it's illegal to drive under the influence of, say, prescribed oxycontin, and I'm sure it's caused many accidents, but I don't think opiates should be illegal. The fact that alcohol is easily detected is an advantage in controlling impaired driving, and it's too bad that other things can't be detected as easily, but it doesn't follow that those things should be illegal.
What arrogant claptrap. I love the notion that Franklin, Brown, and King would make no distinctions between laws and laws.
Not agreeing with a law is not a valid reason for breaking it, as the poster said. You need a further set of reasons; you need some conception of the law's subordination to a higher law and that higher law's permission to break some unjust laws.
I wonder what all you libertarians feel about those Mexicans who have chosen to disregard our country's immigration laws. Are they Juan Browns and Martino Luther Kings? Do you defend also the "murderers" of abortion doctors, b/c the murderers justify breaking laws against killing in the name of the defense of the innocent unborn? Even us Catholics make these kinds of distinctions.
someone dig up a bible reference about pot.
I missed this one. John Brown? Really?
Steve apparently supports the decapitation of innocent people when someone disagrees with the state of the laws.
Let me not be understood as saying that there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say that although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed.
As did King:
I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
First, I'm the only VoR here, so I cannot fight off the other 50 of you and expect every question to be answered.
I don't think alcohol should have been illegal. However, we're a far more sophisticated society than 30 years ago. We are already at a point where you have to control a drug. We weren't there 30 years ago, so no, it shouldn't have been illegal.
And they don't have to be driving erratically. There's a lot more ways for you to be busted driving.
Singer smoke it
And players of instruments too
Legalize it, yeah, yeah
That's the best thing you can do
Doctors smoke it
Nurses smoke it
Judges smoke it
Even the lawyers too
Legalize it - don't criticize it
Legalize it and i will advertise it
I can't believe this hasn't been referenced yet.
Hey, imagine if cannabis had been cultivated in the western world a millennium or so earlier: Judaism/Christianity might be a lot different. More like Buddhism. Whoa. I think I'm going to light up a spleef and think about that.
Of course it is not. Intent.
You can't make everything illegal that would potentially impair a driver without being easily detected. There are a lot of legal prescription medications out there that will impair you as much as alcohol does. I'm guessing it's illegal to drive under the influence of, say, prescribed oxycontin, and I'm sure it's caused many accidents, but I don't think opiates should be illegal. The fact that alcohol is easily detected is an advantage in controlling impaired driving, and it's too bad that other things can't be detected as easily, but it doesn't follow that those things should be illegal.
Intent.
Checkpoints. Some PDs in Connecticut do this.
All bow to the Viceroy of Rangoon!
A Franklin quotation that springs to mind in reading some of this thread:
If your head is made of wax avoid the sun.
I thought you might enjoy that...........
I mean, a guy gets pulled over for speeding. He hasn't been drinking, he gets a ticket and goes on his way.
A guy gets pulled over for speeding. He has been drinking, blows 0.11 (if he blows 0.04, he's *likely* to be let go), and now he's arrested.
Should he be? Of course, the first guy is just driving faster as everyone but DMN does. The second guy is speeding because his judgement is impaired (purportedly).
We remove one guy fom the system *before* he hurts someone.
Now the third guy is pulled over for speeding. He's been smoking pot. He gets a ticket and goes on his way. And kills some people.
You *have* to be kidding. the intent of pot consumption is impairment. Drinking four beers over a couple of hours when you drove to the bar is *clearly* getting impaired with the intent of driving impaired.
Great, now I have to wipe the soma off of my monitor.
So you claim that every single person driving while tired has zero control over whether or not they stop the car? They must drive, they have zero ability to notice that they are tired? Millions of people driving tired on purpose every day. Its a choice.
I'm not saying you should drive stoned. I just can't believe you act like people driving tired have no intent.
As I mentioned earlier, you can catch a stoned driver at a checkpoint by observing them or asking them questions. I think the breathalyzer point is a red herring.
(1) The laws of the land have standing, and as such should be "religiously" observed;
(2) Those laws, however, are subject to a higher law (law of God, conscience, Ciceronian "res publica";
(3) Sometimes there will be bad laws, and even bad laws still retain the force of law and as such should be respected;
(4) And yet, sometimes there will be unjust laws of such gravity they cease to have the force of law [although precisely what this means is discussable], and may be disobeyed;
(5) In such cases, disobedience may not only be permissible, but required (obliged by conscience, which obligation is complete; a man cannot act against his conscience);
(6) Even in such cases, respect for the law requires submission to the punishment consequent upon disobedience, as any good protester has known (think not only of King, but also of the many religious objectors to WWII, like Franz Jaegerstatter).
The notion that dope smoking rises to this level of seriousness just shows you how stable is our regime of laws today. Fight for your right to party, dudes.
And I await the libertarians' reply to my question about Mexican immigrants.
Wouldn't it be true that if the officer determines that the guy had been smoking pot, which is often pretty easy to do, he doesn't go on his way? Seems to me that the moving violation, combined with, say, the odor of marijuana, red eyes, or failure of a field sobriety test, would provide sufficient cause to search the vehicle and/or detain the person. Maybe a lawyer will comment. The fact that we lack the ability to detect and quantify marijuana intoxication like we can (sort of) with alcohol doesn't tip the scale in my mind.
Screwing Kate Moss?
Some friends of mine used the necessity defense successfully to be declared innocent of a trespassing charge. It was pretty mind-blowing.
Should he be? Of course, the first guy is just driving faster as everyone but DMN does. The second guy is speeding because his judgement is impaired (purportedly).
We remove one guy fom the system *before* he hurts someone.
Now the third guy is pulled over for speeding. He's been smoking pot. He gets a ticket and goes on his way. And kills some people.
You're begging the question by assuming that the cop will give the driver in the first scenario a breathalyzer but won't notice that the driver in the second is impaired. Not everyone pulled over for speeding is given a breathalyzer, and it's not like a cop could never tell if someone is stoned.
The great analytic philosopher, Peter Geach (husband of the late and greater philosopher, G.E.M. Anscombe) asked, in his book, "The Virtues", about drinking and drug use. He wondered, do we have an obligation always to be at our peak levels of reasoning (b/c if we did, we couldn't wilfully choose activities that would diminish our reason, including drink and drugs)? Following Thomas Aquinas, he concluded, no, we do not. There are activities we engage in (and must engage in), Aquinas said, that diminish our reason (as, per his example, sexual intercourse). So we are not under such a general obligation. In which case we can choose certain activities that may diminish our reason, including alcohol, and, Geach surmised, perhaps pot.
I love Catholic analytic philosophy!
come on, that's not even close to realistic.
I would like us to open our borders, and don't have much problem with Mexican immigrants.
Protestors?
Now the third guy is pulled over for speeding. He's been smoking pot. He gets a ticket and goes on his way. And kills some people.
Chris, how often do you think this scenario occurs (change it to causes damage or injures people if you like). How often do you think it would occur under legalization?
Hundreds of Trappist monks sigh, and offer thankful but silent prayers to Aquinas and Geach before going about the day's business.
No, you have to be kidding. Of course one should think through the consequences when they embark on a set of actions like this, but people don't. Their intent is to drink a beer or four, probably for its intoxicating effects. The person who smokes dope also intends to become intoxicated. The person who takes oxycontin legally has the intent to alleviate pain. All should know what the consequences of their actions are with regard to driving impairment, and held responsible for them. The person who takes oxycontin gets some slack because of the greater legitimacy of his action, but not a whole lot in my mind, and as I said, there are plenty of people out there taking that drug for its intoxicating effects.
You're being sarcastic, but this sounds suspiciously like "the pursuit of happiness".
come on, that's not even close to realistic.
Fixed it.
Wow.
Nah, they did "I'm An Adult Now".
It syncs better with DSotM. I call it Dark Side of the (Jacksonville) Suns.
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.
This is my problem with legalization, and I say this as someone in favor of it in principle. You let Phillip Morris get a hold of it and you'll see all kinds of $hit added to it. They'll actively try to induce people to smoke, which I don't think is a good thing. The US will turn into a real ugly version of the tourist zones of Amsterdam. It won't be pretty.
I used to be radically pro-legalization of all drugs. Not so much anymore...drug laws are racist (c'mon lawyers, how many people in your office blow lines to work late?), but the fix isn't to legalize drugs. Once you introduce a corporate profit motive, the situation might get uglier than it is now, and it's fugly now with all the people in prison for no other reason than being black and/or poor. For most of us, legalization is a matter of convenience (I'd be able to get pot easier) rather than of real day-to-day social justice/survival.
And Dial has been wrong about this since the PetCo thread. You're not going to convince him now. HE'S A SCIENTIST!!!
:)
No. People can smoke tobacco in their homes all they want.
Why don't they just add these crazy intoxicants to cigarettes?
Yes. Much like Hostess adds sugar to its cupcakes to "actively induce" people to eat them.
The US will turn into a real ugly version of the tourist zones of Amsterdam.
Why?
Henry Hill will move in with his bootleg cigarettes racket.
Probably not, but it depends on what laws you're talking about, and of course, there are various ways of making pot legal. You could make it legal to grow and smoke but illegal to sell. Or you could turn it into a highly regulated, taxed industry. You could limit its use to within homes or some very specific public places, and make it illegal to drive under its influence.
It may be that simply relaxing the legal consequences of its use is the best thing, as has been done in a number of countries. The travesty about it being illegal is that people actually go to jail for using it or selling it, and to me that's the most important thing to eliminate.
What do you mean by liberalize? If you're talking about laws restricting the sale of cigarettes and smoking in restaurants, I don't see any conflict. I favor legalization because I don't see a rational distinction between pot and alcohol and tobacco. But I don't support the absolute freedom for anyone to smoke pot anywhere and anytime, just as I don't support absolute freedom to buy and use alcohol or tobacco. I would have no problems with restrictions on sales to minors, restrictions on smoking in restaurants or other public places, heavy taxes, etc.
Yes. If people are so up in arms about people smoking in bars and restaurants, then let the owners of the bars and restaurants institute a smoke-free policy. Those who do so will do very well.
I am not saying that 10-year-olds should be able to stroll into a 7-Eleven and buy cigarettes, though.
This is a definite argument for decriminalization rather than legalization.
I never got into cigarettes, but I remember going to the drug store and buying cigars and Skoal in my early teens.
In an ideal world, nearly all criminal acts would be ones that are bad enough that they should matter for pretty much any job as a matter of character or safety.
I'm more inclined to allow employers latitude in hiring and firing decisions so long as they aren't crossing boundaries of individual rights (discrimination in protected categories, privacy issues, outrageous work conditions, etc.). A criminal indictment (let alone conviction) is part of the public record, and if an employer cares about it, that should be their right.
I am sure any of us could come up with an easy hypothetical of a kid being taught to do what his parents call "the right thing" that we all would agree is worthy of censure.
If the kid is particularly young, then it's all on his parents. If the kid is old enough to start thinking for himself (and I think that's pretty early), he starts assuming a greater share of the blame.
Like what's happened in California?
Give me a ####### break. Let's compare pot to cigarettes, not to twinkies. Cigarette companies have restrictions on the extent to which they can actively induce people to smoke them. Cigarette companies have their free speech regulated in the interests of public health. Look at all the crap that's added to tobacco by the time a cigarette hits the shelf- you're telling me you'd trust the same companies that did this to get you marijuana that's as safe to smoke as what your dealer gets you now?
If you want to make this about fast/junk food, the same battles are being fought in that realm. NYC has just banned transfats in restaurants. Companies routinely use processed ingredients that are bad for you to make the product cheaper, have a better shelf life, taste better, ect. Love that pot high, but hate that pot taste? Wait until you try Camel's new WATERMELON WEED!!
All I'm saying is I'm not counting on tobacco companies to provide better and/or safer pot. It's a pipe dream...
Why?
You know how people get all retarded drunk at your county fair and every year someone gets stabbed? Picture the average Bud drinker plastered plus he's had a few joints. It's not fun to be around. Somehow people always imagine legalized pot leading to some utopia where everyone hangs out having slinging Dazed and Confused lines back and forth or playing guitar or fingerpainting. But pot won't change the culture that people are smoking it in. This isn't a damning criticism of legalization, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking it'll transform America into some intellectual/quasiintellectual utopia.
Yes. Too, one of my brothers was able to buy booze at a very young age (I'll have to ask him how. I don't recall a fake ID.) This probably explains why I never felt the need for weed as a kid.
Yeah, cause you can buy pot at bars in California. Don't even pretend the two are anything alike...
Or smash into something or someone else.
Nice straw man.
Is there a Primey for strawmen?
And the illegality, if they're trying to escape taxes.
Given the choice between no cigarettes (or alcohol, or marijuana) and illegal cigarettes, many people will choose to break the law.
Given the choice between legal cigarettes that are $6/pack and illegal cigarettes that are $4/pack, there is much lower incentive to break the law.
And marijuana is much, much easier to grow than tobacco, with a much higher yield. Nicotiana tabacum does not grow naturally in the wild. Cannabis sativa grows on its own easily enough; college students with small amounts of discretionary income can grow it in a closet.
Marijuana and tobacco are the same?
Laced marijuana won't be grandfathered in as legal the way cigarettes have been.
It isn't necessary to lace marijuana to get people to come back to the product.
Over 400 dispensaries in Los Angeles alone which provide very easy access to legal pot. Billion+ dollar industry.
None of the problems you've described.
Marijuana is a lot easier to DIY than tobacco, so people won't have to rely on large-scale producers to the same extent, which is why it isn't already legal. And why lacing it won't fly.
Ummm, what? I'm in favor legalization because I think throwing people in jail for using something that's mostly indistinguishable from alcohol and tobacco is absolutely crazy. I don't think legalization is going to transform America.
They do this with alcohol too without ill effects. Or do you believe that Bartles and James is using antifreeze or something?
Give me a ####### break. Let's compare pot to cigarettes, not to twinkies. Cigarette companies have restrictions on the extent to which they can actively induce people to smoke them. Cigarette companies have their free speech regulated in the interests of public health.
Twinkies are also restricted on their free speech. Twinkies are restricted in their additives. All for public health. Get a grip. The tobacco companies partied due to the FDA's failure to regulate, it's not like inhalants are magically different.
you're telling me you'd trust the same companies that did this to get you marijuana that's as safe to smoke as what your dealer gets you now?
Doesn't Philip Morris own a huge chunk of Kraft. I know they own a significant portion of Miller Brewing. It's the same company! Do you trust Miller Lite not to have urea?
But pot won't change the culture that people are smoking it in. This isn't a damning criticism of legalization, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking it'll transform America into some intellectual/quasiintellectual utopia.
This is... I don't know what this is.
Isn't that a blunt wrap flavor? I've seen chocolate, cookie dough, strawberry and others.
Growing up in Kentucky in the 1960's the only identification needed to purchase any tobacco product was the cash to pay for it. I can distinctly remember being sent down to the corner grocery to purchase cigarettes for my father at the age of 8 or 9. The man that ran the store knew who I was and, presumably, knew that I was buying the Pall Malls for my father but he would not have cared if I had smoked them myself. Then, as now, tobacco products were one of the main profit makers for any small retail operation and no business owner was about to turn away the chance to make a buck.
No longer. Miller is owned by SAB, which is not affiliated with PM.
You're assuming I don't have a problem with these things -- but I do. The way I see it, people make decisions for themselves, and they either choose to smoke or not. They either choose to quit or not. Blaming or penalizing other parties for one's own actions is kind of ridiculous.
If you want to make this about fast/junk food, the same battles are being fought in that realm. NYC has just banned transfats in restaurants.
And I have the same issues with those things. Banning transfats in restaurants is absurd.
Agreed. It's an enormous political overreach.
As are the various smoking bans.
YOu should do the same.
What?
It isn't necessary to lace marijuana to get people to come back to the product.
I agree to some extent. But with any business, you want to grow (erg..no pun intended). How do you do that? How did the cigarette companies do it? You try to expand your market, or get people who do something once and a while to do it more often. If you can't do that through advertising, you try to find other means. I've never had a dealer who was a "pusher" (Chris Rock's best line- "drugs sell themselves. no deal has ever said 'my oh my, how am i gonna get rid of all these drugs'...."), but once you've got industrialized production, you've got to figure a way to incentivize/induce consumption. Hell, cigarette companies ae still doing this. Again, not a damning argument against, just a potential problem to be aware of.
The point about the culture isn't an argument against...jesus...
Twinkies are also restricted on their free speech. Twinkies are restricted in their additives. All for public health. Get a grip. The tobacco companies partied due to the FDA's failure to regulate, it's not like inhalants are magically different.
Yeah, and twinkies are great for you...obesity isn't a problem in this country...there's no public health crisis...
I'd like to see what happens. If we were all getting our pot at the farmer's market, it'd be great. But I think the profit motive would transform weed into something other than it is now.
Isn't that a blunt wrap flavor? I've seen chocolate, cookie dough, strawberry and others.
Yeah, and you can still taste the pot with those. I have friends who won't smoke b/c the taste literally makes them sick to their stomach. Flavored blunt wraps will mask it a little, but it still tastes like pot. Banana in brownies actually neutralizes the taste completely for whatever reason...
The situation now is absurd, and it absolutely needs to change. But sometimes the arguments made in favor of legalization seem a bit naive. And Amsterdam is overrun by stoned and drunk 50 year old frat boys, which is what would probably happen to pot culture in the US. That doesn't mean I think it should be illegal...
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main