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

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Bob Ellis, it's your choice.

Bob Ellis, I think you are a disgusting piece of fecal matter. You continually foul our inbox with nothingness that stinks. However, even dog poop should get a chance to expose itself for what it is.

Here's a question for you. If you answer and want to engage in an honest discussion, we can do so.

If you choose not to answer, then I shall delete all of your comments on other topics as they arrive.

And the question is.....

Do you think that cannabis has therapeutic value to anyone for any medical condition?

Feel free to chime in even if your name is not Bob Ellis.

16 comments:

PP said...

And Decorum continues it's reign at the Forum.

Bob Ellis said...

I realize reality and facts clogs your drug-hazed little world, but as someone committed to truth and promoting a better society, I find it difficult to let your lies and deceptions stand unchallenged.

Frankly I don't care if you delete my comments or not; I understand that the truth can be painful. And trying to sooth the pain of an inflamed conscience can be difficult even with an intoxicant.

But I'll answer your question. Yes, marijuana may have some medicinal value in certain medical conditions.

Is that value worth the physical and mental problems that frequently come with smoking pot? No.

Is that value worth he increased crime that will come with legalizing an intoxicating substance? No.

Is that value worth the decay of public morals that will come with legalizing an intoxicating substance? No.

Is that value worth the abuse seen in other states where prescriptions for pot are written for the thinnest of excuses, essentially making it legal on demand? No.

Is that value worth making it more difficult for law enforcement to prosecute those who don't even bother with the pretense of a "medical" excuse? No.

Is that value worth the lives (and lives of family members) that may be negatively impacted because of the greater access and enticement to this drug and other drugs? No.

Is that value worth it when there are a myriad of other pain medications available--including a non-smoked form of THC? No.

Well, I'm sure none of this means diddly to you; nothing is more important to you than peddling and consuming drugs, and I understand that.

But at least I have answered you, and again, for any rational person who might stumble onto your website, now they at least have a life raft to reason.

Bob Newland said...

PP, "it's" means "it is." You may have meant "its," which is the possessive form of "it." All of which, I am sure, means nothing to you, because you have often demonstrated that precision in elocution is secondary to nosing the butts of your neocon powerful friends.

Michael Sanborn said...

Well well well...aren't things pleasant here today...

Bob Newland said...

Okay, Ellis, you answered the first question, albeit while adding a bunch of extraneous and misleading crap.

Here is the second question.

Do you believe it is proper to jail people for attempting to alleviate their own suffering with a medicine that demonstrably alleviates it better than any other available?

I'll be sitting here consuming drugs and thinking of how to peddle them while I wait for your answer.

RC ex-pat in MT said...

Professional dipshit and anti-"nanny state" hypocrite Bob Ellis commented on the previous post, "How odd it must be to consider it odd that it might not be good for a person to consume substances which their body was obviously not meant to consume."

Really, Bob? You don't say. Ignoring the piss-poor wording of the sentence, let's just consider the phrase "it might not be good for a person to ______", how in the hell does that lead to criminalizing activity or consumption of whatever the substance in question is? For someone who is purportedly opposed to the government regulating our personal conduct? Do I need to mention butt-fucking too?

Here are some things, other than pot, that our bodies were "obviously not meant to consume":

1. mayonaise
2. alcohol
3. partially hydrogenated vegetable oil
4. [color] food dye number [N]
5. high fructose corn syrup
6. bread, or any cooked grain (yes, really)

All of those things are legal to consume and came after the dreaded cannabis, even the oldest among them, bread. Yes, I include bread on that list. It is a product of agriculture, which makes it no more than ~10,000 years old and existing in only the very last portion of our evolution. Oh, wait, is Ellis a Young Earth Creationist, so that any talk of tens of thousands of years is meaningless to him?

Oh, one more gem from Ellis:

"When most folks are confronted with the choice of whether to believe those whose job it is to protect the safety and welfare of their fellow citizens...and a dope peddler, the credibility gap makes it a pretty simple decision."

I think his estimation of "most folks" may be a bit off. Why People Hate Cops. That credibility gap was, what, 52% to 48% in 2006? Attitudes have changed in the last four years; have they changed in the direction of more or fewer people thinking the war on drugs is a good thing, people pleased with law enforcement more or less than before?

RC ex-pat in MT said...

Bob Newland said, "Here is the second question. Do you believe it is proper to jail people for attempting to alleviate their own suffering with a medicine that demonstrably alleviates it better than any other available?"

Screw that, Bob. The second question, or perhaps the first, should be, "Do you support the criminalization of the manufacture, possession, sale and consumption of alcohol by classifying it as a Schedule 1 drug?"

RC ex-pat in MT said...

Professional dipshit and anti-"nanny state" hypocrite Bob Ellis commented on the previous post, "How odd it must be to consider it odd that it might not be good for a person to consume substances which their body was obviously not meant to consume."

Really, Bob? You don't say. Ignoring the piss-poor wording of the sentence, let's just consider the phrase "it might not be good for a person to ______", how in the hell does that lead to criminalizing activity or consumption of whatever the substance in question is? For someone who is purportedly opposed to the government regulating our personal conduct? Do I need to mention butt-fucking too?

Here are some things, other than pot, that our bodies were "obviously not meant to consume":

1. mayonaise
2. alcohol
3. partially hydrogenated vegetable oil
4. [color] food dye number [N]
5. high fructose corn syrup
6. bread, or any cooked grain (yes, really)

All of those things are legal to consume and came after the dreaded cannabis, even the oldest among them, bread. Yes, I include bread on that list. It is a product of agriculture, which makes it no more than ~10,000 years old and existing in only the very last portion of our evolution. Oh, wait, is Ellis a Young Earth Creationist, so that any talk of tens of thousands of years is meaningless to him?

Oh, one more gem from Ellis:

"When most folks are confronted with the choice of whether to believe those whose job it is to protect the safety and welfare of their fellow citizens...and a dope peddler, the credibility gap makes it a pretty simple decision."

I think his estimation of "most folks" may be a bit off. Why People Hate Cops. That credibility gap was, what, 52% to 48% in 2006? Attitudes have changed in the last four years; have they changed in the direction of more or fewer people thinking the war on drugs is a good thing, people pleased with law enforcement more or less than before?

Ken G said...

Bob Ellis says:
"Is that value worth the decay of public morals that will come with legalizing an intoxicating substance? No."

Is it not more immoral to lock a man up for smoking pot than letting him be?

Locked up, a young man is likely to be sexually and physically abused.

If it's immoral for men to smoke pot, considering the punishment for smoking pot will likely include sexual and physical abuse, where does that rank on your immoral scale Bob? Your moral compass needs a tune up before you come on here lecturing us about morals.

So why not outlaw alcohol and guns Bob? Nearly everything you listed could just as easily be said about them as well.

As far as legalizing an intoxicating substance, how about Micro Brews? There are already far to many intoxicating beers out there, should we ban Micro Brews? Perhaps start cracking down on wine coolers as well?

larry kurtz said...

Probably the most frustrating twist in The Right's assault is that Ellis disallows my comments at his blog as does the new PPP toilet.

Sanborn, Newland. If you wish to delete his comments and disallow his further sliming of Decorum Forum it's okay by me.

PP said...

Larry -

As I said once, illegal drug topics tend to send the spam filter into orbit. If something didn't show up, just ask.

Newland said...

Well then, fix your fucking spam filter, shithead.

larry kurtz said...

Not you, Pat, you're Catholic.

Politics Pulpit Press, the Howie, Ellis, Olson, Randazzo Protestant toilet.

PP said...

Bob, I think you'll attract more flies with honey than vinegar.

Bob Newland said...

Oh, I seem to be attracting plenty of flies. They buzz around, spawn a few maggots, and avoid answering honest questions.

But thanks for the friendly advice. Now go kiss some neocon ass. That's what you're best at.

taco said...

Eliis should tell someone trying to get through chemo that the "value" of medical marijuana just isn't worth it.