NY Times calls for legalizing pot (1 Viewer)

[Otis]

Wow. Preview from tomorrow's paper.

LINK

 

[Ilov80s]

It has to happen. However, as the people opinions amongst people seem to push for legalization, governments and police are in many ways attacking drugs harder than ever.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Guess who just subscribed to the NY Times

Tommy Chong?

 

[Ted Mullins]

The background changing as you scroll down is great.

 

[Greggity]

Hippies....

 

[Fennis]

NY Times once again being dragged forward by reality.

 

[joffer]

NY Time once again being dragged forward by reality.

Welcome to the enlightenment

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

There were 658,000 arrests for marijuana possession in 2012

insane, what a colossal waste of time

 

[Ilov80s]

There were 658,000 arrests for marijuana possession in 2012

insane, what a colossal waste of time

How many Seal Team 6 style home invasions as well?

 

[Slapdash]

Brooks and Dowd aren't going to like that piece.

 

[Dan Gladden's Mustache]

There were 658,000 arrests for marijuana possession in 2012

insane, what a colossal waste of time

But won't someone think of the children!?!?!?

Besides me, I mean.

 

[Banger]

Regardless of timing, I think it's great that they open he dialogue on the east coast. NY is a logical legalization destination.

 

[tommyGunZ]

This is actually a setback. Those of us who love the Times are already in favor of legalizing it. The morons who are against it are the same morons who disregard everything the Times published since it's a "liberal rag". Thus will further cement their opinion.

 

[JaxBill]

This is actually a setback. Those of us who love the Times are already in favor of legalizing it. The morons who are against it are the same morons who disregard everything the Times published since it's a "liberal rag". Thus will further cement their opinion.

Meh. I think you're painting with an awfully broad brush there. I know quite a few conservative voters who are in favor of legalization if for no other reason they feel that regulation and taxation would still be smaller government than today's War on Drugs. I for one am a moron who views the Times as a liberal rag and would have no problem with legalization.

ETA: And while you're at it, legalize and tax online gambling.

 

[Drunken Poster]

There were 658,000 arrests for marijuana possession in 2012

insane, what a colossal waste of time

But won't someone think of the children!?!?!?

Besides me, I mean.

You seem like a good enough guy. The pedophile shtick isn't funny anymore, if it ever was. Just my opinion.

 

[Ghost Rider]

This is actually a setback. Those of us who love the Times are already in favor of legalizing it. The morons who are against it are the same morons who disregard everything the Times published since it's a "liberal rag". Thus will further cement their opinion.

The NY Times is a liberal rag.

Pot should be legal.

How's that?

 

[Das Boot]

Papa says, "If you see it in THE TIMES it's so."

 

[Pots]

This is actually a setback. Those of us who love the Times are already in favor of legalizing it. The morons who are against it are the same morons who disregard everything the Times published since it's a "liberal rag". Thus will further cement their opinion.

The NY Times is a liberal rag.

Pot should be legal.

How's that?

The NY Times isn't a liberal rag.

Pot should be illegal.

 

[Dan Gladden's Mustache]

There were 658,000 arrests for marijuana possession in 2012

insane, what a colossal waste of time

But won't someone think of the children!?!?!?Besides me, I mean.

You seem like a good enough guy. The pedophile shtick isn't funny anymore, if it ever was. Just my opinion.

I laughed.

 

[MaxThreshold]

This is actually a setback. Those of us who love the Times are already in favor of legalizing it. The morons who are against it are the same morons who disregard everything the Times published since it's a "liberal rag". Thus will further cement their opinion.

Meh. I think you're painting with an awfully broad brush there. I know quite a few conservative voters who are in favor of legalization if for no other reason they feel that regulation and taxation would still be smaller government than today's War on Drugs. I for one am a moron who views the Times as a liberal rag and would have no problem with legalization.

ETA: And while you're at it, legalize and tax online gambling.

He does that an awful lot because he's an extreme partisan shill.

I agree that we should legalize pot and I also agree that the NY Times is a liberal rag. It's really just nothing more than the publishing arm of the DNC.

 

[matuski]

Congress is as unlikely to take action on marijuana as it has been on other big issues.

 

[bigbottom]

This is actually a setback. Those of us who love the Times are already in favor of legalizing it. The morons who are against it are the same morons who disregard everything the Times published since it's a "liberal rag". Thus will further cement their opinion.

Meh. I think you're painting with an awfully broad brush there. I know quite a few conservative voters who are in favor of legalization if for no other reason they feel that regulation and taxation would still be smaller government than today's War on Drugs. I for one am a moron who views the Times as a liberal rag and would have no problem with legalization.

ETA: And while you're at it, legalize and tax online gambling.

He does that an awful lot because he's an extreme partisan shill.

I agree that we should legalize pot and I also agree that the NY Times is a liberal rag. It's really just nothing more than the publishing arm of the DNC.

Tommy didn't say that those who think that the Times is a liberal rag oppose legalization. He said those who oppose legalization think the Times is a liberal rag (and thus the Times taking this position would be counterproductive to changing their minds). That may or may not be a fair or logical conclusion, but it is nevertheless a different point than the one you appear to be attributing to him.

 

[otello]

Let the states decide:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/high-time-let-states-decide-on-marijuana.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region

 

[DrJ]

Yeah, they're usually pretty slow in New York.

 

[Jobber]

Over the last several years, I've morphed into a single issue voter. This is my issue. Good job NYT.

 

[McGarnicle]

There were 658,000 arrests for marijuana possession in 2012

insane, what a colossal waste of time

But won't someone think of the children!?!?!?Besides me, I mean.

You seem like a good enough guy. The pedophile shtick isn't funny anymore, if it ever was. Just my opinion.

Yep.

 

[NREC34]

I just watched a discussion about this on Stephanopoulos. Tom Cole, R from OK said he wants to see some real legislation on this and didn't say he was against legalization. Maybe that was just a political answer and he didn't want to say how he really feels but it really feels like to me it's a question of "when" not "if".

 

[Otis]

I just watched a discussion about this on Stephanopoulos. Tom Cole, R from OK said he wants to see some real legislation on this and didn't say he was against legalization. Maybe that was just a political answer and he didn't want to say how he really feels but it really feels like to me it's a question of "when" not "if".

Totally looking forward to a day I can come home from work after a long week, sit out in my yard and smoke a bowl with the missus. I love drinking, I love cigars, but a little variety will be nice.

 

[Pots]

Over the last several years, I've morphed into a single issue voter. This is my issue. Good job NYT.

What does this mean?

That the only thing you care about in a candidate is whether or not they support your stance on smoking pot?

Or

That the only thing you bother to get up and vote on is your stance on whether or not people should be allowed to smoke pot and let everybody else decide what happens with the country?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Over the last several years, I've morphed into a single issue voter. This is my issue. Good job NYT.

What does this mean?

That the only thing you care about in a candidate is whether or not they support your stance on smoking pot?

Or

That the only thing you bother to get up and vote on is your stance on whether or not people should be allowed to smoke pot and let everybody else decide what happens with the country?

Sure he does. It's a step towards fixing the US Trade Deficit.

 

[cstu]

There were 658,000 arrests for marijuana possession in 2012

insane, what a colossal waste of time

It must suck to get arrested for marijuana possession with it being legal in other states. After living in California for 11 years it's hard to imagine that people are still getting arrested for it.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I have posted this link before. It's from 1991 but the points are still valid today.

 

[pollardsvision]

Over the last several years, I've morphed into a single issue voter. This is my issue. Good job NYT.

What does this mean?

That the only thing you care about in a candidate is whether or not they support your stance on smoking pot?

Or

That the only thing you bother to get up and vote on is your stance on whether or not people should be allowed to smoke pot and let everybody else decide what happens with the country?

I think it makes sense.

It's unlikely to find a candidate where you agree with everything their entire platform, so picking one big issue would make some sense.

And this one is a good choice.

It's a complete slam dunk where no reasonable person should think pot should remain illegal. Reasonable people can disagree on almost all other issues, bu not this one.

Frankly, it's a good litmus test as to whether the candidate is indeed a free and reasonable thinker, or just a party/special interest shill.

This one issue can help many state economies and the nation's, possibly, more than any other issue.

 

[cstu]

.

 

[Jobber]

Over the last several years, I've morphed into a single issue voter. This is my issue. Good job NYT.

What does this mean?

That the only thing you care about in a candidate is whether or not they support your stance on smoking pot?

Or

That the only thing you bother to get up and vote on is your stance on whether or not people should be allowed to smoke pot and let everybody else decide what happens with the country?

I think it makes sense.

It's unlikely to find a candidate where you agree with everything their entire platform, so picking one big issue would make some sense.

And this one is a good choice.

It's a complete slam dunk where no reasonable person should think pot should remain illegal. Reasonable people can disagree on almost all other issues, bu not this one.

Frankly, it's a good litmus test as to whether the candidate is indeed a free and reasonable thinker, or just a party/special interest shill.

This one issue can help many state economies and the nation's, possibly, more than any other issue.

This is exactly my reasoning. If a politician isn't level headed enough to acknowledge that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, I have no time for them. And certainly no vote.

 

[Otis]

Over the last several years, I've morphed into a single issue voter. This is my issue. Good job NYT.

What does this mean?

That the only thing you care about in a candidate is whether or not they support your stance on smoking pot?

Or

That the only thing you bother to get up and vote on is your stance on whether or not people should be allowed to smoke pot and let everybody else decide what happens with the country?

I think it makes sense.

It's unlikely to find a candidate where you agree with everything their entire platform, so picking one big issue would make some sense.

And this one is a good choice.

It's a complete slam dunk where no reasonable person should think pot should remain illegal. Reasonable people can disagree on almost all other issues, bu not this one.

Frankly, it's a good litmus test as to whether the candidate is indeed a free and reasonable thinker, or just a party/special interest shill.

This one issue can help many state economies and the nation's, possibly, more than any other issue.

This is exactly my reasoning. If a politician isn't level headed enough to acknowledge that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, I have no time for them. And certainly no vote.

At this point any politician who wants to keep pot illegal is just mindlessly following a party line or has such screwed up judgment and analytical ability (probably crazy social conservative views too) that there's no way I could vote for them.

 

[meatwad1]

This is actually a setback. Those of us who love the Times are already in favor of legalizing it. The morons who are against it are the same morons who disregard everything the Times published since it's a "liberal rag". Thus will further cement their opinion.

Meh. I think you're painting with an awfully broad brush there. I know quite a few conservative voters who are in favor of legalization if for no other reason they feel that regulation and taxation would still be smaller government than today's War on Drugs. I for one am a moron who views the Times as a liberal rag and would have no problem with legalization.

ETA: And while you're at it, legalize and tax online gambling.

Plus one here.

 

[NREC34]

I just watched a discussion about this on Stephanopoulos. Tom Cole, R from OK said he wants to see some real legislation on this and didn't say he was against legalization. Maybe that was just a political answer and he didn't want to say how he really feels but it really feels like to me it's a question of "when" not "if".

Totally looking forward to a day I can come home from work after a long week, sit out in my yard and smoke a bowl with the missus. I love drinking, I love cigars, but a little variety will be nice.

Yeah it will be nice for sure but when you get the munchies I can already foresee the complaining on your dieting thread.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I just watched a discussion about this on Stephanopoulos. Tom Cole, R from OK said he wants to see some real legislation on this and didn't say he was against legalization. Maybe that was just a political answer and he didn't want to say how he really feels but it really feels like to me it's a question of "when" not "if".

Totally looking forward to a day I can come home from work after a long week, sit out in my yard and smoke a bowl with the missus. I love drinking, I love cigars, but a little variety will be nice.

Yeah it will be nice for sure but when you get the munchies I can already foresee the complaining on your dieting thread.

Overeating is still legal.

 

[humpback]

Over the last several years, I've morphed into a single issue voter. This is my issue. Good job NYT.

What does this mean?

That the only thing you care about in a candidate is whether or not they support your stance on smoking pot?

Or

That the only thing you bother to get up and vote on is your stance on whether or not people should be allowed to smoke pot and let everybody else decide what happens with the country?

I think it makes sense.

It's unlikely to find a candidate where you agree with everything their entire platform, so picking one big issue would make some sense.

And this one is a good choice.

It's a complete slam dunk where no reasonable person should think pot should remain illegal. Reasonable people can disagree on almost all other issues, bu not this one.

Frankly, it's a good litmus test as to whether the candidate is indeed a free and reasonable thinker, or just a party/special interest shill.

This one issue can help many state economies and the nation's, possibly, more than any other issue.

This is exactly my reasoning. If a politician isn't level headed enough to acknowledge that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, I have no time for them. And certainly no vote.

At this point any politician who wants to keep pot illegal is just mindlessly following a party line or has such screwed up judgment and analytical ability (probably crazy social conservative views too) that there's no way I could vote for them.

 

[Otis]

Over the last several years, I've morphed into a single issue voter. This is my issue. Good job NYT.

What does this mean?

That the only thing you care about in a candidate is whether or not they support your stance on smoking pot?

Or

That the only thing you bother to get up and vote on is your stance on whether or not people should be allowed to smoke pot and let everybody else decide what happens with the country?

I think it makes sense.

It's unlikely to find a candidate where you agree with everything their entire platform, so picking one big issue would make some sense.

And this one is a good choice.

It's a complete slam dunk where no reasonable person should think pot should remain illegal. Reasonable people can disagree on almost all other issues, bu not this one.

Frankly, it's a good litmus test as to whether the candidate is indeed a free and reasonable thinker, or just a party/special interest shill.

This one issue can help many state economies and the nation's, possibly, more than any other issue.

This is exactly my reasoning. If a politician isn't level headed enough to acknowledge that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, I have no time for them. And certainly no vote.

At this point any politician who wants to keep pot illegal is just mindlessly following a party line or has such screwed up judgment and analytical ability (probably crazy social conservative views too) that there's no way I could vote for them.

It's just like things were in the days before they ended prohibition or gave black people the right to vote. The fat rich grey haired white guy way of thinking is about to lose out to reason and enlightenment.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Hard to vote for people who think "yep, what we do never worked but let us doing more of the same."

 

[DrJ]

Weed should be legal, but 32 oz soft drinks are just way over the line.

 

[The General]

I will roll the next j with the op-ed section. Nice work, NYT.

 

[humpback]

Over the last several years, I've morphed into a single issue voter. This is my issue. Good job NYT.

What does this mean?

That the only thing you care about in a candidate is whether or not they support your stance on smoking pot?

Or

That the only thing you bother to get up and vote on is your stance on whether or not people should be allowed to smoke pot and let everybody else decide what happens with the country?

I think it makes sense.

It's unlikely to find a candidate where you agree with everything their entire platform, so picking one big issue would make some sense.

And this one is a good choice.

It's a complete slam dunk where no reasonable person should think pot should remain illegal. Reasonable people can disagree on almost all other issues, bu not this one.

Frankly, it's a good litmus test as to whether the candidate is indeed a free and reasonable thinker, or just a party/special interest shill.

This one issue can help many state economies and the nation's, possibly, more than any other issue.

This is exactly my reasoning. If a politician isn't level headed enough to acknowledge that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, I have no time for them. And certainly no vote.

At this point any politician who wants to keep pot illegal is just mindlessly following a party line or has such screwed up judgment and analytical ability (probably crazy social conservative views too) that there's no way I could vote for them.

It's just like things were in the days before they ended prohibition or gave black people the right to vote. The fat rich grey haired white guy way of thinking is about to lose out to reason and enlightenment.

How does it feel to be on the losing side?

 

[Otis]

Over the last several years, I've morphed into a single issue voter. This is my issue. Good job NYT.

What does this mean?

That the only thing you care about in a candidate is whether or not they support your stance on smoking pot?

Or

That the only thing you bother to get up and vote on is your stance on whether or not people should be allowed to smoke pot and let everybody else decide what happens with the country?

I think it makes sense.

It's unlikely to find a candidate where you agree with everything their entire platform, so picking one big issue would make some sense.

And this one is a good choice.

It's a complete slam dunk where no reasonable person should think pot should remain illegal. Reasonable people can disagree on almost all other issues, bu not this one.

Frankly, it's a good litmus test as to whether the candidate is indeed a free and reasonable thinker, or just a party/special interest shill.

This one issue can help many state economies and the nation's, possibly, more than any other issue.

This is exactly my reasoning. If a politician isn't level headed enough to acknowledge that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, I have no time for them. And certainly no vote.

At this point any politician who wants to keep pot illegal is just mindlessly following a party line or has such screwed up judgment and analytical ability (probably crazy social conservative views too) that there's no way I could vote for them.

It's just like things were in the days before they ended prohibition or gave black people the right to vote. The fat rich grey haired white guy way of thinking is about to lose out to reason and enlightenment.

How does it feel to be on the losing side?

Well, I'm white anyway.

But if feels like the winning side.

 

[The General]

Weed should be legal, but 32 oz soft drinks are just way over the line.

Yeah that is dumb. The soda is probably worse for you though.

 

[humpback]

Over the last several years, I've morphed into a single issue voter. This is my issue. Good job NYT.

What does this mean?

That the only thing you care about in a candidate is whether or not they support your stance on smoking pot?

Or

That the only thing you bother to get up and vote on is your stance on whether or not people should be allowed to smoke pot and let everybody else decide what happens with the country?

I think it makes sense.

It's unlikely to find a candidate where you agree with everything their entire platform, so picking one big issue would make some sense.

And this one is a good choice.

It's a complete slam dunk where no reasonable person should think pot should remain illegal. Reasonable people can disagree on almost all other issues, bu not this one.

Frankly, it's a good litmus test as to whether the candidate is indeed a free and reasonable thinker, or just a party/special interest shill.

This one issue can help many state economies and the nation's, possibly, more than any other issue.

This is exactly my reasoning. If a politician isn't level headed enough to acknowledge that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, I have no time for them. And certainly no vote.

At this point any politician who wants to keep pot illegal is just mindlessly following a party line or has such screwed up judgment and analytical ability (probably crazy social conservative views too) that there's no way I could vote for them.

It's just like things were in the days before they ended prohibition or gave black people the right to vote. The fat rich grey haired white guy way of thinking is about to lose out to reason and enlightenment.

How does it feel to be on the losing side?

Well, I'm white anyway.

But if feels like the winning side.

Anywho, love the schtick that it's only those "mouth breathers" who oppose it, when the reality is plenty of the "critical thinking" politicians are opposed as well.

 

[DrJ]

Weed should be legal, but 32 oz soft drinks are just way over the line.

Yeah that is dumb. The soda is probably worse for you though.

It depends on how often you do each. 32 oz of weed can wreak some havoc on your lungs.

 

[Otis]

Over the last several years, I've morphed into a single issue voter. This is my issue. Good job NYT.

What does this mean?

That the only thing you care about in a candidate is whether or not they support your stance on smoking pot?

Or

That the only thing you bother to get up and vote on is your stance on whether or not people should be allowed to smoke pot and let everybody else decide what happens with the country?

I think it makes sense.

It's unlikely to find a candidate where you agree with everything their entire platform, so picking one big issue would make some sense.

And this one is a good choice.

It's a complete slam dunk where no reasonable person should think pot should remain illegal. Reasonable people can disagree on almost all other issues, bu not this one.

Frankly, it's a good litmus test as to whether the candidate is indeed a free and reasonable thinker, or just a party/special interest shill.

This one issue can help many state economies and the nation's, possibly, more than any other issue.

This is exactly my reasoning. If a politician isn't level headed enough to acknowledge that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, I have no time for them. And certainly no vote.

At this point any politician who wants to keep pot illegal is just mindlessly following a party line or has such screwed up judgment and analytical ability (probably crazy social conservative views too) that there's no way I could vote for them.

It's just like things were in the days before they ended prohibition or gave black people the right to vote. The fat rich grey haired white guy way of thinking is about to lose out to reason and enlightenment.

How does it feel to be on the losing side?

Well, I'm white anyway.

But if feels like the winning side.

Anywho, love the schtick that it's only those "mouth breathers" who oppose it, when the reality is plenty of the "critical thinking" politicians are opposed as well.

Plenty of politicians opposed allowing black people to vote and ending prohibition. Doesn't really mean that are even within a football field of being right.