The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Sunday, July 4, 2010

How will it be better for society when more fish are riding bicycles?

On any issue of widespread interest--that is to say, on any political issue--there is a 15 per cent idiot factor on each side. 15 per cent of the electorate is opposed to it, 15 per cent favor it, even though none of that 30 per cent can verbally articulate their position. Nonetheless, if you are advocating a political issue, there is no point in your wasting time on the idiot factor. You can’t convert the opponents within it, and you don’t want those within it who agree with you trying to win over undecideds.

Bob Ellis continues to ask the irrelevant question, “How will having more intoxicated people in our community produce a better society?” The rest of his faction of the idiot factor rub their chins, smirk and nod their heads; their point is made.

Within the medical cannabis argument, Ellis appears to be implying that allowing sick, disabled and dying people legal access to an herb that will alleviate their suffering or save their lives will create “more intoxicated people in our community.”

Okay, that must mean that Ellis thinks that relief from pain or nausea is synonymous with “intoxication.”

Is there any reason to attempt further to reason with this person?


larry kurtz said...

What if rather than than intoxicatedwe refer to the effect as impaired? Same relative contraindication accompanying any stong medicine for pain.

larry kurtz said...

Typos comorbid to impairment.

Bob Ellis said...

You act as if pot was the only pain medication in the world. We all know better. We all (hopefully) know THC is available in non-smoked forms...but that, of course, isn't acceptable. It doesn't advance the drug legalization vehicle.

While I'm still curious as to how having more intoxicated people will make our society better, I've yet to run into a single person who advocates allowing fish to ride bicycles, much less one who might attempt to articulate a justification for such activity.

Bob Newland said...

Ellis, you are lying. I don't act that way and you know it.

Drodrabinol (synthetic THC) is perfectly acceptable if it works. Unfortunately, it doesn't for the majority of folks for whom smoked, vaporized, cooked or brewed cannabis works.

As for Ellis's second paragraph, is there any reason to attempt further to reason with this person?

Bill Fleming said...

Reasoning is out of the question until Ellis learns the differences between cleverness and wisdom, and fact and opinion. It might not hurt though to try to trick him into lightening up once in awhile. Hey, everybody can use a good laugh, right?

For example, my giving you a reason to reason with unreasonable Bob, Bob, is kind of a fun thing to get to type.

I wonder if B.E. can catch the meaningful drift of its meaninglessness and roll with it?

Or is that asking too much for a guy who eschews the chewing of herb and other laugh inducing substances?

DDC said...

Mr. Ellis-

The fact is that marijuana is an extremely effective and cheap painkiller with almost no adverse side-effects. Yes, there are other painkillers, but the cheaper ones are also the most addictive and dangerous. There are a ton of adverse side-effects associated with those painkillers.

Smoking marijuana is the cheapest and quickest method of delivery. There is no processing that needs to be done. A person can grow their own in a spare bedroom for almost no cost. Non-smoked forms of THC are expensive in comparison and require some significant.

You constantly ask how society would be better with more intoxicated people. Your question is not nearly as clever as you think it is. The fact is, these patients would be intoxicated anyways, just on more dangerous intoxicants.

A better question would be this: Is our society better off with these patients high on oxycodone (and likely addicted) and a cocktail of other drugs than we would be if they were allowed to smoke marijuana instead?

Lastly, what business is it of yours? Why do you insist on telling others how to live their lives, especially those with rehabilitating conditions? I can't fathom how someone that rails against the nanny state feels the need to control the lives of others. I guess you aren't actually against the nanny state, you just don't like it when your side isn't in control of it.

DDC said...

Wow, shouldn't post while running out the door for a parade.

Second paragraph should end with "significant processing." and would make more sense starting out with "Smoking the marijuana".

Last paragraph should have "debilitating conditions", not "rehabilitating conditions". Darn spell-check.

Tess Franzen said...

The argument shouldn’t be whether or not medical marijuana should be legalized; the argument should be whether or not marijuana should be legalized. That’s clearly the endgame, and that’s what I keep in mind when pondering how to vote on the issue in November.