A cause you can get behind
(Anti-Prohibition Protesters)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: Nematode_Girl
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous MATCH.COM | due to the current economic recession Next »
» 125 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Nad on THE FABRIC OF OUR LIVES Blue on Ballistic Marshmallows Blue on Osombie MrsQ of Philadelphia on The Running Man MrsQ of Philadelphia on The Running Man MrsQ of Philadelphia on Who You Gonna Call? Santorum's Campaign … on Tim Gunn Eyeroll bob on Who You Gonna Call? InGen Corp. on The Running Man The Dragon on Osombie 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? Home - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
GIF: I Meant to Do That!
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Spreadsheet Hell
Just Capshunz - All of the Internet. Captioned
He Must Ride the Love Rollercoaster A Lot
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Great Escape
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Nom Distraction
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Reader Squees: Camera Hoggin' G-Peeg
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
Socially Awkward Gentlemen
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Slurm! It's Highly Addictive!
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
Curse You, Spam Mail!
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
THE JOKE'S ON HIM
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Tom Hiddleston Totally Looks Like Young Robert Englund
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Epicute: Red Velvet and Pink Hot Chocolate
Or in front of…
Replace “Beer” with “Weed” and you have a nearly synonymous picture of current America.
Then replace ‘Weed’ with ‘ Boobies’
No, no, no, you definitely want to be in front of those.
For half of the population, that’s a painful prospect.
Baring some strange boob self-reflexivity, ya jerk! = )
I’d rather have wine. But I defintely agree with backing alcohol as a whole.
Never been much for beer but I understand and believe in anti-prohibition laws of beer and weed.
/stagnant comment.
i could use some beer. or some weed. or some wine.
.
or maybe just a case of jack daniels, some cuban cigars and some blunts…
And some boobies.
How about beer, weed, AND boobies?
Never had weed, but beer & boobies would do nicely.
I can’t stand beer or weed, I will just have the boobies please.
Okay, hey someone pass DWM the boobies. They’re at the other end of the table and I can’t reach them.
Ya man, stop hogging the boobies… Pass that down, man… @_@
I pretty much favor most anti-prohibition laws. I still support the prohibition on sex with minors. As Pink Floyd put it “Hey! Preacher! Leave the kids alone”. Sex with miners is also a bad idea, I tried once but he kept shining that helmet light in my eyes.
I can see the climax dulled a bit when you are feeling like you are on the wrong end of a train light.
And the line was Hey Teacher, Leave those kids alone.
Takes on a whole new meaning when viewed in that light.
That it definitely does.
when it comes to sex with minors I think ‘Hey Preacher’ comes closer to the mark than the Pink Floyd original lyric.
“Father, I think when Jesus said ‘Suffer the little children and come unto me’, I don’t think THAT’s what he had in mind.” – George Carlin
It could still apply to teachers too, sadly enough.
Replace beer with rum and I’m there.
But that is always gone…
*BURP* Sorry about that fellahs
It’s funny because it’s true.
only in soviet america …
My choice is what I choose to do, and if I’m causin no harm it shouldn’t bother you.
-
Your choice is who you choose to be, and if you’re causin no harm then you’re alright with me.
Woot, now that we have the obvious stated and out of the way, let’s have a dance off.
The Steve can go first.
You know, I thought they were Germans till I noticed the signs were in English xD;
Oh, to have such simple concerns……
errr yeah cause y’know in 1932 there was NOTHING in America to worry about except Alcohol prohibition…. the Political/Economic/social pressures facing the country were NOTHING like today
hummm the
Prohibition: hence the Great Depression. And Prohibition was actually started in 1920…
*dancin’*….oh wait…I’m drunk…
Drunk people dancing?
Oh dear…
I know, that’s so unusual, right?
I hate it when people compare legalizing alcohol to legalizing weed. There are dozens of reasons why the two situations are different, but “legalizing = legalizing” to some people. Keep in mind as well: if prohibition had succeeded, George Bush would *never* have been elected.
Please list a few of these reasons, I’m curious to see them.
The thread sort of jumped a bit… I described some a little below. To sum up the two I mentioned: alcohol was already culturally “normal” for centuries before prohibition, and second-hand drunkenness is impossible (save for intricately/hilariously arranged IV setups). I can go more in-depth if you want, but I think that first reason is actually the most important. I want to stress that I’m actually open to weed legalization, even if I personally disagree with it. It’s just that there are some really stupid trains of thought going around because people are willing to believe almost anything to justify the legalization of weed. There are legitimate comparisons to alcohol prohibition, but most people oversimplify them and take them to unrealistic extremes.
Centuries-old cultural norms don’t stack up well against the curtailment of personal liberty, especially when nobody is wronged by the act in question. I can almost see the argument about second-hand highs, but a few restrictions on use (analogous to drunk-driving laws) could take care of that.
Ya, I am a second hand smoke fascist but I still believe it should be legalized. Just keep it out of my face and I don’t care.
Never smoked weed, or done any illegal drugs for that matter, and I support the legalization of weed. Why? Because alcohol is a far more dangerous drug, and it’s perfectly legal. And hey, in a rough economy, wouldn’t it be great to add a new industry that’s sure to prosper to our GDP?
And keep money in America as opposed to sending it abroad to foreign areas producing the weed.
That’s right. Support American weed! Smoke American!
Agreed! Buy local! Most foreign countries can’t compete with the quality coming out of California anyway
-
Happy cows come from California because California has the best grass.
It is already illegal in most places to smoke (tobacco or otherwise) in any public building, including bars, restaurants and taverns.
-
How and where do you propose you would receive this “second hand high”? People aren’t going to be taking bong rips in the super market checkout line, or in the cubicle at the office for god’s sake. Stop letting fear make your decisions for you, and start thinking logically about the situation.
-
Also recognize the difference between DECRIMINALIZATION, and LEGALIZATION. You cannot possibly support the legalization of tobacco and alcohol, and still maintain that marijuana should be a criminal offense without coming off as extremely hypocritical. It should at the very worst be a civil infraction.
Yes, that’s right. It would have been much better if they hadn’t prohibited weed.
No, there’s a reason why “legalizing=legalizing” besides the obvious. Can anyone here think about one problem that prohibition caused in the 20′s that we can see happening today? Two? Three?
The health problems stemming from alcohol abuse (which are much worse and more numerous than marijuana abuse) are besides the point. It’s the actual prohibition that causes the black market violence. There’s one drunk, and then there’s an army of guys with uniforms and big-ass weapons. Who causes the most violence?
Alcohol and marijuana are intrinsically different drugs. One has been a mainstream part of every society I’m aware of for hundreds of years (in many cases *thousands* of years), and is widely understood today, even among children. The other is a relatively “new” drug that’s only been around for a few generations, and in my experience isn’t even fully understood by most of its proponents. One can’t accidentally get their neighbor drunk by letting loose and going crazy over several bottles of whatever your fancy is. If you’re careless with weed, it’s not a stretch to imagine an entire apartment building being affected. Sometimes the role of the government isn’t to take the easiest possible path, but to take the one that’s actually *right.* There’s a fuzzy line of where you decide that “right” and “wrong” are, but alcohol != weed, and each one needs to be looked at separately.
But this isnt about the differences and similarities between alcohol and marijuana is it? The real question is whether the negative aspects of weed are serious enough to merit such harsh punishment on those who use it or deal in it… Personally, I think there are worse crimes then smoking a joint now and then. And your behaviour should never harm or affect your neighbours. Whether it is smoking, blowing, drinking or playing obscenely loud music. You dont need special anti-marijuana laws to protect the neighbours.
My point was that there’s an exceedingly common argument that, because it’s commonly accepted that alcohol prohibition was a bad thing, then by extension anti-weed regulation must also be bad, because weed and alcohol are “equivalent.” The situation is far more complex than that. We live in a country with a regulatory body called the FDA. It’s their decision, and not the masses’, that determines what you can and can’t legally put in your body. Heck, they recently made something as seemingly harmless as *Tylenol PM* into a prescription drug, which would place it in roughly the same category as weed, which can be medically prescribed in many areas. So why can we ban Tylenol PM? Or Vicodin. Or the flu shot. Why won’t black markets emerge around *those* drugs? When they legalized alcohol, the problem didn’t go away. It just slowly shifted to the next drug. If/when they legalize weed, who’s to say the same thing won’t happen, and the black market just moves on to a harder drug? That’s the side that isn’t taken into account.
Marijuana is much less dangerous than alcohol. Lethal dose 50 tests by toxicologists bear this out.
Click on my name for a scientific article on the topic.
Oooooh, good cite. Thanks babe!
Glad to help! It’s nice when my trivia-stuffed brain can actually be useful!
(Very NOT like my stuffed-up head…)
Yay stuffed up head. Well I figure as a science teacher, you are full of facts and mysteries so that was a given that your stuffed up head was useful.
And here I thought I was mysterious because I was a woman?!
Woman just means self complicating. Being mysterious makes you mysterious.
What–you’re implying that I can think myself into a pretzel? Oh, that’s right, I can. Erm. *starts dancing around to distract DWN*
Soo… What do you think about pirates?
Are they wearing puffy shirts?
Puffy shirts, ‘accidentally’ unlaced 1/2 way down their chests!
And yes, DWN, that includes the ‘lady pirates’. Naturally!
You had me at boobies…
Did someone say boobies??????
*brings ConservoBoobies ™ to the table*
Did someone call for boobies?
How about, instead of doing drugs, you actually try to deal with them for long-term relief rather than just getting a high that lasts for five minutes?
Crap.
*deal with your problems
Tell that to those drinking and smoking tobacco…
Or are you having a nesting fail since I can’t see what your relevance to this thread is besides an odd tangent.
So your stance is that nicotine, alcohol, and caffeine should also be illegal, correct?
I can understand your viewpoint that all drugs are bad, I cannot understand criminal penalties for those using said drugs. Locking people in prison is not the answer, clearly drugs should be treated as a public health issue, not a criminal issue if your argument is to do what is the most healthy for the people.
If not, you are a hypocrite. Either ALL drugs are bad, or personal liberty dictates that you should be able to make that choice as an informed adult who knows the health risks involved. You can’t have it both ways.
History/anthropology fail – cannabis has been around for a lot longer than you think, just not in the Eurocentric society you’re used to studying. The indigenous peoples of the Americas used cannabis medicinally and ritually LONG before the European explorers brought them distilled spirits.
The foremost reason why cannabis is misunderstood in our society is that even its thorough study has been banned in America. Alcohol is well understood because over the past few generations its myths have been peeled away by scientific study; no such thorough analysis has been done with cannabis and the majority of the common knowledge statements about its effects are completely uninformed by science.
The effectiveness of second-hand smoke is one of those, by the way, just so we’re really clear.
Wrong. Cannabis, which originated in or around the Indian subcontinent, was the drug that was brought to the Americas by European explorers. Distilled spirits, on the other hand, were already a part of native cultures in the form of drinks such as pulque. And this is what I mean when I say that even proponents don’t fully understand the stuff. This is information that’s out there, and not dependent on studies being done and made available. Thank you for proving my point.
What of it? The implications of alcohol use vs. cannabis use tend to favor cannabis over alcohol. The social ramifications of cannabis use are less damaging than those of alcohol. With alcohol, society is treated to drunken driving, domestic abuse, and a plethora of other ills. Those who indulge in cannabis are generally peaceful and harmless. Why then, is alcohol legal and cannabis not?
Because that’s a one-dimensional argument. It doesn’t contradict anything else I’ve said. So any of my other arguments, taken on their own, may be legitimately considered enough to justify the decision. It’s possible that they’re not, as well, but you’ve got to soundly disprove all counter arguments before you can speak with the absoluteness that pro-weed individuals usually do (and that you’re speaking with now). But I’d like to point out that you’re wrong in regards to peaceful potheads. I’ve personally never encountered a mean drunk. Not to say they don’t exist. I’m actually quite sure they do. But *I’ve* never seen one. On the other hand, I *have* been physically assaulted by a dude who got high, came to my ice cream store, and demanded free ice cream. Which isn’t to say that this is some scientific, air-tight evidence regarding the negative effects of weed, but it once again proves that the “common perceptions” that many pro-weed individuals generally rely on aren’t as true as they might think.
Why does he have to ‘soundly disprove all counter arguments’ about cannabis, but no one had to soundly disprove all counter arguments about alcohol, tobacco, &c.? Justify the double standard and you might have somewhere to go with this.
It’s very interesting too how you base your judgment of all cannabis users on one incident with one person, whom you perceive to have been a pot smoker. Were you with this person when they got high? Do you know what they were on, whether they had only one substance or a combination? Do you know anything about the character and predispositions of that one person? If you had more data than one isolated incident, the way we have a huge field of statistical data on alcohol abuse and its effects, then you might have a point.
Because I’m not being an absolutist like most other people in this discussion. The stance I’m representing is “there are legitimate reasons that weed is illegal.” What you’re representing is “there are none.” The latter has a far more vigorous burden of proof. As for the pothead: it is true that I didn’t actually see him light up, but he was a friend of mine (which is why he came to me for free ice cream), and I knew his habits. You’re going to have to trust me on this. I’ll also note that I specifically said my observations aren’t scientific and only served as a counter-example for “common knowledge” that is often expounded. You seem rather upset that it’s been suggested that marijuana may not be the perfect solution to everything. It’s a plant, not a god. Learn to take things in their proper perspective.
I think “absolutist” is a little harsh. I think the reasonable position to take here is that cannabis should be a regulated substance, the same as alcohol. Not even the most fervent legalizer wants to see kindergarten teachers lighting up a spliff in class. Personal responsibility should always be exercised, but the attempt to outlaw vice will always end up making criminals of ordinary citizens. This in turn decreases respect for the law and those who enforce it.
We need to regulate it, tax the hell out of it AND the incomes made from it, AND quit sending that money to Mexico and elsewhere.
I don’t smoke the stuff, but I pay enough taxes, and am SICK of reading about marijuana sellers getting more prison time than child fondlers.
Anybody agree?
I second this as a victim of said child fondlers… Also I believe in common damn sense so that works out too.
I think we should legalize, regulate, and tax the hell out of prostitution as well. Think of all the money that would be generated…
That is another one of my pet arguments on the interwebz, I concur.
I agree, and put those hookers in hemp skirts, too! Hemp is five times more durable than cotton, iirc.
I’d agree on both the marijuana and the prostitution.
It is very interesting to see the level of failed facts that people try to bring to the prostitution argument too… The usual disease and violent crime schtick that is easily countered by actually regulating and taking it off the black market.
And don’t mind my babble, I’m at work and it is a holiday. Loads of time, so I apologize in advance if my excessive posting gets annoying.
Is your avatar a Morning Glory, an Anemone,
or what? Me likey!
Oops! Above was at Diss.
@rho: Moonflower! One of the few plants I’ve actually had luck with over the years (although this one’s not mine).
There are two plants commonly called Moonflower. One is a Morning Glory (Ipomoea alba) that opens its blooms in the evenings.
The other, Thorn Apple (Datura innoxia), has been used for its hallucinogenic properties for years by Native Americans in the Southwest. (It’s a weed there.) Two or three people die each year from overdoses of the drug, iirc, which is rendered from a root tea. I have it in a corner that doesn’t get hit too well by the sprinkler, and prune it with a lawn mower.
The best thing about Moonflowers is that rubbing the leaves makes your fingers smell like peanut butter.
What’s not to love about that?
Both plants open blooms in the evenings because they are moth pollinated.
@Jane St. Claire: I submit that is why violent crimes are very low in Amsterdam.
I personally am going to come in here and state that you’re a twit because I feel like being unpleasant. You state that you have never met a mean drunk but met one high dude who attacked you over ice cream.
Well, I have personally met at least two mean drunks that I can recall through my morning haze of caffeine withdrawal. One was a guy who would get drunk (personally visually confirmed this as a child) and then would smack his wife around and even put dents in his trailer walls with her body.
The other incident I actually bear a scar from. When I was very little, my grandfather got drunk and stated “Hey little buddy, give me your hand.” Being that I idolized my grandfather at the time, I stuck said hand out. He then took a box cutter from his keychain and slit my wrist, laughing at my shock. Luckily my mother found me quickly so I am still here. Charges weren’t filed but he was never drunk around me again.
Now I actually saw these people get drunk. I’ve also seen the results of others in my life getting drunk and what havoc they had wrecked, some minor and hilarious to major and hospitalizing.
As for trusting you on your friend getting high, whoopdiedamndoo. Just means it would need to be controlled like alcohol and tobacco is controlled, no more or less. I think it is you who are lacking perspective. Your high friend doesn’t trump the drunk driving statistics that any moron can find on Google. Sure there are reasons weed is illegal but that doesn’t make them good reasons.
Your “pothead” friend may have done more than just pot, and may have had a non-related personality or other disorder. You may be too young to remember the famous “Twinkie defense,” but Twinkies are still on the shelves. Automobiles are available to many, despite my ability to prove that they are dangerous. My offer of proof would be a lot less shaky than yours, also.
Using one anecdote (and a shaky one at that) does not rise to the level of proof you think it does.
The plural of “anecdote” is not “data,” so you have not proven a thing.
Also, the fact that *you* claim to have never met a mean drunk means absolutely nothing in the face of reality.
Damn, I think your retort was more clever than my retort. Double damn, I’ve been out-clevered!
*huggles DWN in the Breasts of Mediocrity™*
It’s okay. The law of averages caught up with me once. It shouldn’t happen again until July.
No worries, I think the flaw in my argument was that it was too personal of examples but I did counter him dammit… Can’t take that from me, you just did it in a more reasoned fashion. I look forward to July then. *huggles* Mmm, boobies.
The Breasts of Mediocrity™ approve this message.
Hot damn, as opposed to cold damn. And nobody likes reheated damn.
@fishamaphone: How on earth does somebody get to the age of actually being legally employed without ever seeing a mean drunk? *mind boggles* If you really question the concept (and apparently live in Pleasantville or something) turn on an episode of Cops….
@Diss: I don’t even visit bars and I still see them about so your guess is as good as mine.
@DWN: Maybe he sees them and thinks they’re all potheads? Lol.
@Diss: WIN!!
@Diss: I concur with Rhorho. WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aw, thanks.
You don’t know me, so I’m going to be more charitable than you and not assume you’re a flaming idiot the way you assumed I’m a mindless absolutist.
If you actually READ what I’ve written rather than interpreting it as “Legalization WHARRAGARBLE,” you would have noticed that I did NOT say there are no legitimate reasons to restrict cannabis – I never said any such thing. I DID say that the bulk of the “conventional wisdom” about the substance is unsupported by science, which is only true, and I undermined one or two glaringly obvious falsehoods of yours. That is a LONG way away from saying there are no legitimate reasons to restrict the stuff.
In fact it’s you who are taking an absolutist position by saying that cannabis should not be legal under any circumstance, and you who have a higher burden of proof. I, along with the majority of posters here who replied before me because I had a busy day yesterday, think it ought to be subject to regulation and taxation much the way alcohol is.
that isn’t really a good argument against legalization of weed, just another point that it ought to be regulated. in many places, if not all, it is illegal to be drunk in public, so it is less likely you’ll get a pissed off drunk yelling at you in the street, and if you do it is easily taken care of. If weed were to be treated this way, users would not be allowed to be high in public. the second hand high thing can be dealt with as well, just as stated earlier playing loud music and whatever is dealt with in apartments.
And you, in turn, slit your own throat. Cannabis was used in other non-European cultures, you just admitted. Due to lack of sleep some part of my brain connected it with the naturally occurring hallucinogens used by some native American cultures, but you clearly know that it has been known and used for a long time and your “relatively new drug” line is disingenuous.
You also have no counterargument whatsoever to the fact that you are arguing from ignorance about cannabis’ effects, much the way people argued from ignorance about alcohol’s effects until the rigorous scientific studies of the past century peeled back the falsehoods of “common knowledge.”
Cannabis wasn’t made illegal until it came under pressure from the same crusading types who pushed for alcohol prohibition – and it was then, in the 1920s and 30s, that the name marijuana was popularized to infuse cannabis prohibition with anti-immigrant sentiment by associating the plant with the “dirty Mexicans.” For centuries before then it was believed to have medicinal value, claims that haven’t been as thoroughly tested as they deserve because of the political asshattery driving legal restrictions with very little rational basis.
You don’t understand my argument. Yes, weed *existed* more than a few hundred years ago, but it wasn’t until recently that it was widely used as a hallucinogen. Thus the quotes around the word “new” in the post above. Get an open mind, then come back. You’re just as much a crusader as the puritans from the early 20th century that you claim to dislike so much.
So your argument is that we should be bound by the past for no better reason that it was so in the past?
So not much of a leap before he preaches that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry for the same reason… I think I have had my fill of fallacy of tradition for a lifetime over these two arguments.
He already used the Fallacy of Tradition for the legalization of alcohol use, so at least he’s being consistently naive.
Slavery, female oppression, polygamy and stoning, anyone?
So you’re saying that it wouldn’t be a stretch for him to support my secret stance of having a harem of devoted female slaves? AND I can throw rocks at people!?
SWEET! I’ll buy a day pass to the stoning fair, I need to work some anger out…
Yeah, but don’t try to feed froo to the lions again. Remember what happened to the lions last time…
*lower lip quiver*
Ya, I plan to put Froofrou in charge of minion management. She should be happy there. I may want a harem of female slaves but I value intelligent women.
That and lions are expensive to replace…
That should be okay, as long as you put her in Hannibal Lecter gear. It only takes one instance of her intensive zeal to … well you know.
*tries to block memories of what happened to the lions*
I am actually counting on her zeal to keep the minions in line.
It was part of the reason I put her in that position, the other reason is because she made me such a nice jacket from those lions.
The ConservoBoobies of Zeal ™ approve of this.
Yay!
You claim that cannabis is a hallucinogen?
I’ve heard it classified as a hallucinogen before but I’ve also heard that you would have to smoke a shit load more than most ever would to get that effect from it.
NO NO NO.
It is NOT a hallucinogen, regardless of the quality or quantity that you smoke.
No, you don’t understand and/or haven’t bothered to read, either my post or any history at all. Cannabis was used in Europe both medicinally and recreationally for hundreds of years – Queen Victoria was known to take it for relief of menstrual pain.
And THC is not a hallucinogen either, so that’s another factual fail on your part.
You’re the one with the closed mind.
Weed has NEVER been used as a hallucinogen. It is NOT a hallucinogen!
Your facts are ALL wrong! I have no idea where you got this information, but none if it is factual!
Cannabis dates back over 10,000 years to the Stone Age, and has still never had a single recorded case of death caused by the drug.
[Link]
I still would like to hear you provide one reason that cannabis should be illegal. Keep in mind that reason cannot also apply to alcohol, because alcohol is scientifically proven to be more dangerous, and it is legal. So you need to provide a reason why it’s safe for alcohol to be legal, but not for cannabis. The bottom line is, there is no legitimate reason.
as a medical treatment, cannabis has been in use about 4,000 yrs – unless you are methusula, that is way more than a few generations!
secondly, when cannabis was prohibited it has already fallen out of usage by most americans, and was looked down on because it was primarily the african and mexican immigrants who were still using it. it had fallen from usage because the active ingredient could not be manufactured in the same way as other pre-modern medicine could be (asprin etc). by not being able to manufacture and control the medical field was unable to profit from the marketing of cannabis, and since the government couldn’t profit (tax) from it either, cannabis was easy to ban by playing up on the fears of white middle and upper classes.
The main arguments I’ve heard over the initial ban of cannabis stem from the paper and timber industry being pissy that cannabis is easier to grow and cheaper to make into things. Therefore, ban it.
This is a protest where i can see the point
I do believe that is a picture of my own hometown of Milwaukee Wisconsin. Where prohibition didn’t just mean you couldn’t get drunk it meant you didn’t have a job.