Personally, I think it is enough justification, considering the very substantial list of negatives and downsides associated with current cannabis policy in the US.
You have a good point. But, I'm talking about what potheads think.
Personally, I think it is enough justification, considering the very substantial list of negatives and downsides associated with current cannabis policy in the US.
That's like saying "How else should I deal with a weight problem? Just try to exercise and eat right? What's the point when diet pills are much more effective?". I'm not the only one with this big powerful brain you guys speak of. Literally millions of people all over the planet have these big powerful brains because they get over life's little issues on their own without taking drugs of any kind. If you want to believe all the BS you see on tv and hear from people that you need to take a drug for every little "problem" you come across in life then that's your choice because it's your body. There are people out there with real issues and then there are people out there that have trouble getting to sleep every once in a while. These aren't real problems. That's everyday **** we all deal with. Man up and deal with it or go cry with one of your fellow sympathizers and talk about how mean I am for thinking someone who can't get to sleep every once in a while doesn't need medication.
Anyway I think weed should be legal even though I think it's dumb. I'm just giving you crap about it because you're like the chop country internet avenger of weed.
Its because simply saying I like to get high isn't enough of justification so it warps into I need it to relax, sleep, function, etc.
No, that's not at all what I asked. I asked when a "write your local politician" movement was more effective than a "break the stupid law until it changes" movement. I don't believe writing to a politician will change their mind, and there's no evidence that it will accomplish anything. Please learn to read and stop straw manning me.
I'd like to know when this was effective in changing a politician's mind and changing laws more so than a lot of people just breaking the law.
i love the argument of "if you continue to defy a societies stance on an issue, even though we agree that it is a dumb stance, that you are the problem and not the society"
That is precisely what I said. I said, in the above quote (I guess I'll paraphrase because it's the same exact thing), "When was writing to a politician more effective in changing their minds and laws than blatantly breaking the law."
When was "writing and calling local politicians" more effective than just breaking the law? That's what I said. I never, ever said "no movements have ever been or will ever be successful." What on earth are you talking about. I know you can't answer that question, which is why you're changing the argument (shocking).
That's carpe for you. Not much logic.
I'd still love for you to explain to me what I meant by my very obvious quote carp.
Your "very obvious quote" was actually very opaque, considering you were responding to three separate scenarios and did not specify in any way which one I was referring to. Would seem pretty obvious to the untrained eye you were replying to the whole quote and not simply one portion of it.
yeah considering I never even remotely even said that....
I said it was your own fault if you caught when you knew the law, regardless if you agree with the law or not. Again, you're reading comprehension is terrible. I've pointed out at least 4 times in this thread that I understood your point, and hell I even agreed that it should be legal.
if we break it, we're the problem..not the law you find stupid.
Wouldn't a bunch of people breaking the law on purpose be considered a movement? So when I referenced politicians in response to your reference to politicians, you didn't understand what I was talking about?
I don't know. Would you consider thieves part of a movement since more people commit theft than any other crime?
And considering that politicians are the ones that can change laws (what my quote was referencing) , then no