ivan Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 "It is dangerous to be right when the goverment is wrong" - Voltaire the nazis are watching all of you bastards...any body who has a problem w/ others using the green, within sensible boundaries, is a self-righteous fuck and deserves the zulu-treatment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 ...any body who has a problem w/ others using the green, within sensible boundaries, is a self-righteous fuck and deserves the zulu-treatment What are these "sensible boundaries"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 "It is dangerous to be right when the goverment is wrong" - Voltaire the nazis are watching all of you bastards...any body who has a problem w/ others using the green, within sensible boundaries, is a self-righteous fuck and deserves the zulu-treatment The first rule of fight club is don't talk about fight club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knelson Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 ...any body who has a problem w/ others using the green, within sensible boundaries, is a self-righteous fuck and deserves the zulu-treatment And THIS isn't a self-righteous attitude??? Seems to me, "sensible boundaries" also include not publically documenting behavior that obviously would get a federal employee in deep shit from his supervisors. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have gotten your medicine if said employee knew it was going to be documented for everyone to see! (Well... maybe a couple of them wouldn't give a shit, but still...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 a question of definitions, easily dealt with: self-righteous - a condition whereby a person believes their own values and views are so laudable they should be imposed on others (implication of definition => me deciding to take risks w/ my health, again within "sensible boundaries" is not self-righteous; i'm not telling you how to live you're life, nor arousing the wrath of the body politic against your own eccentricties and threatenign you with imprisonment - i'm just calling the big meanies of the world who want to foist their own moralities on me assholes - i doubt i'm the first to do so) as far as saying self-righteous fucks deserve the zulu-treatment, the emphasis is on "deserve," which is quite different than saying "we should actually round them up and give them the old-sharpened stakes pounded up the ass (my most recent and interesting learning from reading "the washing of the spears")" sensible boundaries - the definition in this context applies specifically to behaviors committed while "under the influence" and apply equally to alcohol. it's insensible to drink heavily and climb with others, insensible to drink heavily and drive a car at 100 mph, insensible to drink heavily and go to work. (implication - all my posts have been done dead sober, so the poor taste i've shown on occasion in writing shit that's totally untrue, just for the sake of being a wierd fuck, including bullshit about park rangers handing out tabs of acid and assisting me growing 'shrooms ontop of rainier, can't be chalked up to being "under the influence" - in truth, i'm just an asshole - wait, maybe i should become a nazi too, i appear to be qualified. anyway, if anyone's still reading this beserko-manifesto, it might interest them to know i don't even smoke anymore; like when i quit tobacco, ages ago, i simply refused to allow my own decision to quit to turn me into a judas - i am equally revolted by the american legions who want to demonize cigarrete smokers and make it so the only damn place they can light up is in their homes, in their bedrooms, under the covers and for the cost of 300$ a pack. again, it is repugnant self-righteousness to enforce your view of health and morality upon others who are doing you no direct harm. slainte Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjor Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 a question of definitions, bla bla bla blaa,,,who are doing you no direct harm. slainte whoaa I like that rant, good way to put it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knelson Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Ivan, Well put. I'm not actually arguing with you - just questioning the appropriateness of the original TR... whether true or not. I would've been surprised if you HADN'T been contacted by some higher ups. And to be pissed off and calling folks that are just actually doing their jobs (whether they agree with it or not) Nazis, seems kinda odd. But hey - as you noted - we are still living in somewhat of a free country. And by the way - it WAS a great trip report. Great weather, great pics, overall great outing. -kurt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 ...all my posts have been done dead sober, so the poor taste i've shown on occasion in writing shit that's totally untrue, just for the sake of being a wierd fuck, including bullshit about park rangers handing out tabs of acid and assisting me growing 'shrooms ontop of rainier, can't be chalked up to being "under the influence" - in truth, i'm just an asshole - wait, maybe i should become a nazi too, i appear to be qualified. My point in questioning what constitutes "sensible boundaries" is that the qualifying term "sensible", in the end, is arbitrary and differing for each individual and intoxicating substance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 (edited) kurt, i can't defend the original TR - i thought i was being funny at the time, only to see the whole thing blow-up like a big shit balloon when it looked like totally innocent people were going to get in trouble. that's the true source of my anger - the use of nazi is no doubt extreme, but while we're on the subject, how many nazis after the war defended their actions by saying they were just doing their job? when someone chooses to enforce inane rules they earn my disrespect and scorn - as a petty authority figure myself i well understand this, and there are many regulations i do not enforce on a daily basis for that reason (this is why the classic government class lesson that the legislature makes law and the cops just enforce it is actually bullshit - administrators in fact are key creators of law in their own right, since they continously pick and choose what laws they enforce and how to interpret them). again, to be as specific as possible, there is nothing wrong w/ the sensible consumption of ganja - i can only hope this senseless era of prohibition will die sometime during my lifetime so much of my contempt for The Man will go away... Edited July 7, 2005 by ivan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 My point in questioning what constitutes "sensible boundaries" is that the qualifying term "sensible", in the end, is arbitrary and differing for each individual and intoxicating substance. i agree of course that we all have varying takes on definitions for sensible, but i don't think that makes it impossible for us to achieve a consensus definition that precludes a total prohibition of the on the grounds that it is unreasonable - we would afterall think a complete prohibition of video games inane, despite the fact that there are those we become so addicted to them that their health and welfare suffer and constitute a drag on society as a whole, because we can jointly agree that such games can and usually will be played under "sensible boundaries", i.e. not going to work or ever talking w/ our families in favor of playing. we can of course dither over the precise lines of the boundaries, but i doubt we disagree on the broad strokes of the divide as they're all outcome based (maintaining health and happiness, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambled_legs Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 the use of nazi is no doubt extreme, but while we're on the subject, how many nazis after the war defended their actions by saying they were just doing their job? when someone chooses to enforce inane rules they earn my disrespect and scorn - as a petty authority figure myself i well understand this, and there are many regulations i do not enforce on a daily basis for that reason (this is why the classic government class lesson that the legislature makes law and the cops just enforce it is actually bullshit - administrators in fact are key creators of law in their own right, since they continously pick and choose what laws they enforce and how to interpret them). Does your employer know about this picking and choosing what laws to enforce or how to interpert them? Are you a Securitas or Wackenhut employee told to watch for people spitting on the sidewalk? Whatever you do it must be damn petty. Sure a person can choose not to enforce or interpert different laws but if a Cop decides to let a grow-op go undetected because he feels that the law is stupid well I'm pretty sure he'll be let go. Or if a Cop is told to go investigate a liquor store for selling to minors and he decides not to cause it is stupid, I'm pretty sure he'd be let go also. As a cop, you have no authority to change the laws laid out in front of you rather you have the choice to enforce the law or find a different occupation with few exceptions. Sure there may be some instances like seatbelts or doing 15km/h over the limit that can get passed over but once again those are some pretty damn petty things. As for Nazi's just doing their job... they were. If they chose not to they'd probably be killed. It was a horrible disgraceful period and to sit back now and act so self righteous is easy. Not to sound like I'm defending their actions I'm just trying to show you that things aren't as simple as they seem. Hell even the new Pope was part of Hitler's youth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 i thought about writing a long response for ya, senor legs, but then figured out you're just a damn ignorant fool and there'd be no point. i'd suggest getting an education and applying it to the real world before getting out of your polly-annish kiddie pool... you and the pope sound like you have something in common though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Scrambled Legs: Ivan: That ranger at Schurman must have shit his pants when he read your (otherwise magnificent) TR. It never ceases to amaze me...seeing the legnths the pro-pot lobby will go to, and the degree to which they will draw upon twisted and illogical comparisons. Frankly, mj probably should be decriminalized...but it isn't! So in the meantime, Ivan, might I suggest trying to change the system from within by writing a really, really big check to The Libertarian Party. And also in the meantime, for their own good health, I hope the local potheads will keep their dirty habit away from me...and my children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 “It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambled_legs Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 My dear Ivan, I am quite an educated man and that is why I made an educated response. You on the other hand chose to construe some quote made by a respectable person in a completely different context to try and back up some insane rant that they would oppose. You are a fool and I would love to know what your pathetic supposedly well educated ass does as a petty officer. After all, you felt compelled to tell the world about someone else ignoring the rules of their occupation to try and forward your cause, why not tell the world who you are and what you do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 there's plenty enough folks to argue w/ in my own country. those folks i'd care to know here already know who i am and what i do and it wouldn't take much research at all for you to figure it out either. every drug imaginable was legal in lincoln's time - i'm certain he'd have been amazed if he'd known that one day hemp would be illegal to grow in the usa, as it was a major cash-crop in his native kentucky i majored in government n' foreign affairs at the university of virginia - day one of my administrative law class began by debunking your commonly espoused myth and went on to provide countless examples of the executive branch's inevitable process of creating de facto law. surely you've heard of the communities that still have laws on the book outlawing riding on buses w/ goldfish, watering your lawn w/o shoes on, spitting on the sidewalk, etc? why are they still on the books? because the executive branch, the cops, haven't enforced them for so long (because they were inane to begin with) most folks even forgot those laws existed - the cops by their righteous inaction negated established law, and what kind of a fool would say they had done a bad thing by sparing little tommy his jail time for chewing cherry-flavored gum while in public building? if you truly believe that human's behaviors should be in lock-step w/ the legal whims of society, then i repeat again my belief that you and others like you would have fit right into the wehrmacht - you are pathologically unfit for democracy and deserve whatever tyranny befalls you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambled_legs Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Ivan, all that education and you still don't understand how things work. I have a BA in Criminology and the Criminal Justice system with a minor in Law. We too studied said laws but we also studied how these laws became stale. It was not because individual police officers chose not to enforce them. Rather they became stale because the courts refused to hand out punishments for them creating statutes, the enforcement agencies agreed as a whole to stop enforcing them and the general public as well as the politicians were also in agreement. In fact some laws like spitting on the sidewalk have regained popularity and the police are being pressured to start reinforcing them in certain areas like Vancouver. The politicians or public send a concern to the Chief and he in turn sends the word to his pawns that a certain offence is to be punished. The pawns better do as he says if they ever want a promotion or don't want to end up behind a desk or lose their job. In the same way, if the courts and public send a message that a law needs to be forgotten then the chief will tell his pawns to relax said law. Once again you are refering to petty laws that don't matter. On the other hand you are suggesting to stop enforcing a law concerning drug enforcement causing millions of dollars in property damage, deaths and a huge underground criminal network with the most notorious criminal groups in both of our countries. If you think that a cop can just tell his Chief that he thinks its a stupid law and that he didn't bother processing the dealer that he caught last week, and still keep his job, you're even more naive then you first appeared. Not everyone out there can act like politicians and do whatever the hell they want as long as they sorry when they get caught. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 how many cops enforced prohibition in the 1920s? it was the widescale contempt for the volstead act, on the part of both citizens and cops, combined w/ the corruption of public officials that contempt inevitably led to, which eventually led to the (temporary) abandonment of the silly notion that the government should dictate what people can put in their bodies in this thread i have spoken on only one specific drug, and the only reason there's a huge undeground criminal network sullying its name is because it's illegal - i'm not talking of cocaine and heroin and the host of other drugs that clearly are addictive and destructive and are the main focus of the notorious crime-syndicates of which you speak. shit, how wierd is this world when a canuck from b.c. would be playing devil's advocate in a mary-jane conversation? the key, as an enforcer of law, in not enforcing stupid laws, is not telling the authorities above you exactly what you're doing. it's hardly a rarity - how many people on this board have cops let them slide on something, be it a speeding ticket, pissing in public (my favorite), etc. non-compliance is a powerful thing, especially when its non-flagrant - take the american south during reconstruction - they refused to cooperate, pretended to be in compliance with laws they quietly flouted, and eventually so wearied the north it quit the whole scene for the next 80 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambled_legs Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 You know you're right, I am a Canuck from B.C. and it is freakin' surprising to everyone whenever I speak up against legalizing mary jane. I think the exact reason I'm against it is because I am a Canuck from B.C. I've seen so many of my friends with so much potential turn chronic and ruin their future. Sure there are tons of studies are out there that say pot is harmless. There are also studies out there that prove that the active ingrediant in B.C. cultivated weed has 100 times the potency of the gov. manufactured weed used in the tests. When I see my buddies lighting up 6 times a day with no future interests or interests at all I think it's all a load of shit. You can't tell me that a guy who lights up 10 times a day isn't addicted. Sure come back with the alcohol argument... funny thing is I know over 10 personal friends that I'd classify as addicted to weed and its ruined their life, yet I only know 1 that I'd classify as an alcoholic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 They don't use "government cultivated weed" in tests.. they use a population of smokers who use what they buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
specialed Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 You know you're right, I am a Canuck from B.C. and it is freakin' surprising to everyone whenever I speak up against legalizing mary jane. I think the exact reason I'm against it is because I am a Canuck from B.C. I've seen so many of my friends with so much potential turn chronic and ruin their future. Sure there are tons of studies are out there that say pot is harmless. There are also studies out there that prove that the active ingrediant in B.C. cultivated weed has 100 times the potency of the gov. manufactured weed used in the tests. When I see my buddies lighting up 6 times a day with no future interests or interests at all I think it's all a load of shit. You can't tell me that a guy who lights up 10 times a day isn't addicted. Sure come back with the alcohol argument... funny thing is I know over 10 personal friends that I'd classify as addicted to weed and its ruined their life, yet I only know 1 that I'd classify as an alcoholic. So, the fact that you hang out with a bunch of burnout bong smoking hippies justifies mass governmental intrusion into our personal lives? Maybe you just need to reexamine who your buddies are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 i'm filled w/ passions and interests, read voraciously, run and climb daily, take good care of my wife n' daughter, and generally enjoy the hell out of life while winning great praise and admiration at a professional job, and i frequently light up way more than 6 times a day - especially during summer when i don't work; i also abstain for months, even years, at a time when circumstances dictate, and don't feel in the least bit edgy or agitated when i do - i have a large number of friends who are exactly the same way, who - outside of that one particuliar law - are the very models of good citizens. i would again emphasis that my use is responsible and intelligent - i stay sober for things that mandate sobriety (most notably work) i think the problem w/ our loser friends who've thrown their lives away (and i too have known my share) is that they'd most likely have done so regardless of the legality and availabity of weed (and yet since they've done it w/ weed, that gets the infamy) - the world is awash w/ destructive substances, distractions and activities which are legal, many of which are pleasant and beneficial in moderation (video games, tv, sex, climbing,etc), but can destroy if engaged in excessively. to use another undoubtedly misapplied quotation: "the fault, dear brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves" the person who has lost motivation to live productively will find an infinite number of options to fritter away their apathetic hours, and to outlaw every one of those options is to rob the joy of life from those who are actually living it. it is certainly true that a person who's worked himself into a rut will be less probable to get out of that rut if they take up a bad, distracting habit - weed for example, which is illegal, or grand theft auto 3, which is not. i'm not proposing though that we outlaw the games... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 generally enjoy the hell out of life while winning great praise and admiration at a professional job, and i frequently light up way more than 6 times a day An honest question from a curious/neutral/ignorant lurker... How does one smoke and stay sober for work? What is the normal # of times someone who is a regular smoker would indulge on a working day? How long do the effects last? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 well, i go to work in the morning, so it's not exactly a challenge to stay sober before then - smoking the night before leaves no residual hangover, unlike alcohol, which is very nice. people who are responsible wouldn't be smoking at work, unless it's a bullshit job that mandates it (like working as a chef, where's it's actually advantageous -mmmm, bacon....). the volume of consumption typical afterwork would vary greatly on the person, the pot, after work responsibilites, etc. the strongest effects last a short time, say an hour or so, and over months of use are notably blunted - becoming rather simple and innocous, like being hungry and well-humored. the length and severity of effect is nothing like alcohol - there's never anything like the total loss of physical and emotional control that comes w/ overconsumption of liquor, nor the destructive residual physical effects of booze that lasts for hours and sometimes days after a real bender - essentially it's a damned near harmless plant that makes you feel happy with life and close to your friends and family (and if that's not a threat to the safety of this world, i don't know what is ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Thanks for the explanation. And thanks for not making feel stupid for asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.