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

Friday, September 10, 2010

Okay, back by popular demand: Bob Ellis

For the record, I haven't deleted any Ellis posts except the one.

Bill Dithmer posts some questions in the topic thread below. I thought they deserved their own thread. He prefaces them with this:

In logical debates on any subject there should be questions that are asked and answered not on emotional viewpoints but on recognized documentation from research that doesn’t have a preconceived outcome in mind. Admittedly on some subjects that information is hard to come by. In this case it is not only easy to find but hard to argue with.

It is interesting that when people that are against the use of medical cannabis talk about documentation they are in most cases talking about research that the government has paid for and in exchange expect certain results. I might remind the reader that it hasn’t been very long ago that even research on marijuana was illegal in this country except for those studies mentioned earlier. Now with the light shining on studies funded by people and institutions that want to know the real facts the truth is coming out and those that want to continue the war on drugs are trying hard to suppress that truth.


Game on, Ellis!

QUESTIONS FOR THE DEBATE
1. Why do you think medical cannabis should not be available to those that could get some relief from it use?

2. Do you believe that the use of medical cannabis can harm the general public and if so document how that harm might be seen.

3. Can you give us one example of a drug overdose on cannabis? and document that example?

4. Our attorney general just today told the public in a statement that there are safer drugs then marijuana, can you name one drug that is safer?

5. In some of your earlier statements you have told us that the use of pot causes the family to be weaker because of lost jobs, poor job performance, failure to take care of children, and poor community involvement. Can you document any of these charges for us?

6. You have stated that cannabis is a "gateway drug" can you show your proof through documentation?

7. Do you believe that marijuana causes violent behavior? If so please show that documentation.

8. Have you read the IM13 and if so can you tell us what parts you object to and why?

9. Do you think that marijuana should remain a schedule I drug and why? Again show some documentation to back up your thought process.

10. A lot of the anti IM13 talk revolves around the possibility of kids using their parents medical marijuana or getting prescriptions of their own from a doctor. Although these things are addressed in IM13 I would very much like to hear your thoughts on this subject. Also do you agree that in reality any kid can in a days time get pot from someone on the street any time they so desire?

Pat Powers feel free to jump in here I'll let anybody play.

19 comments:

Bob Ellis said...

Sorry, Bob, I'm not your puppy. If you're looking for a trained pet who will jump and roll over when you want, go to a pet store. Or just light up another doobie and imagine that you have one.

I've provided you and your fellow pot heads more than enough information for any rational person to realize that your "medical" marijuana smokescreen is (a) a farce and (b) harmful to both the individual and the society. And if there is any doubt remaining, come on over to Dakota Voice and read the extensive information I've provided there.

You should quit thinking of yourself sometime and give serious consideration to trying to help make society better for everyone. It's far more redeeming and rewarding that the goal of greater stupor.

larry kurtz said...

5:14? Up early jonesing for that Dagwood sandwich, Ellis, or just an early start to that dose of human growth hormone?

Bob Newland said...

You not my puppy, Bob. You my dawg, dog.

Bob Ellis said...

Note from Newland: This is the post from Ellis I deleted. Please register that I am saying I made a mistake in so doing.

Begin quote by Ellis:

I try to avoid wasting too much time on people who demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that (a) they aren't the least bit interested in truth or facts and (b) are so self-centered they can't see beyond their own petty pleasures. I try to keep my time on Planet Micromind (aka Decorum Forum) to a minimum, shaking your cage occasionally so that someday you may be in the right frame of mind to actually hunger for reality, and grab the rope I provide. But beyond that, I just don't have the time to waste on petty, closed-minded people.

But I'll indulge you one more time, mostly for the benefit of any thinking people who might wander by (and if you're ever brave enough to face unvarnished reality, there are several articles on this subject at Dakota Voice you're welcome to read).

"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?"

With the multitude of pain medications available legally--including a non-smoked form of THC--I'm not buying what you're selling...not the pot, not the excuses, not the vehicle to full drug legalization, which is what this is really all about.

People who are suffering can use one of the myriad of legal pain medications available--ones that do not corrupt the moral fiber of society and put their fellow citizens at risk from crime and drug abuse themselves.

And if they are indeed obstinate enough to refuse to use a legal pain medication and insist on putting their own personal agenda ahead of the welfare of countless fellow citizens around them, then yes, they need to be punished like any other lawbreaker. Drug court may be an option, provided they are not as hard-headed as yourself, but if they insist on self-centered behavior, jail time may be the only thing that may shake them out of their self-serving tendencies. And if not, at least they are no longer posing a danger to society when they're behind bars.

And no, just in case you were wondering, I'm still not buying the "medical" marijuana smokescreen (pun intended).

Bob Newland said...

By golly, I'll run right over to Dakota Voice for a dose of unvarnished reality.

Bob Newland said...

Oops. So much for that. Here is Ellis' disclaimer:

"Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted."

Material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

So any documentation I present will be deleted, because it is not my own opinion. My own opinion will also be deleted because it is not salient.

Oooookay.

Bob Newland said...

I guess I'll just have to be satisfied with firin' up a doob and imagining I have a puppy that likes me.

larry kurtz said...

Exactly.

"horne"

Bill Dithmer said...

Bob Newland I am sure sorry about all this. I thought maybe Ellis would respond to kindness but I was wrong. Adult debates are for those that are ready to learn the truth. Ellis seems content to stay away from anything that brings that truth out into the open. I cant figure out if he is heavily invested in big pharmaceutical companies or if he is just that insane.

I will make this statement and then talk no more about Bob Ellis on this subject. The lies and propaganda that Ellis squirts are as worthless as sperm on sheets from the wet dreams of a twelve year old boy. Nuff Said about Bob Ellis.

With Ellis out of the debate I guess I will have to broaden the people asked to take part in the question and answer session. Art Mabry and our AG maybe you could come on here and answer the same questions I asked Ellis. Its not a real debate so you could have time to do some research on the matter before you answered. I guess I look at it this way. Not answering is the same as admitting that you either don’t understand IM13 as written, or you have a very good reason to continue the lies about medical marijuana. I suspect that either way you answer will be a surprise to the general population of South Dakota.

A blind man with a low IQ calling out the anti medical cannabis big guns, Whod a thunk it.

Ken G said...

Bob Ellis says:
"I've provided you and your fellow pot heads more than enough information for any rational person to realize that your "medical" marijuana smokescreen is (a) a farce and (b) harmful to both the individual and the society."

This sentence in and of itself says volumes. We know from many past polls that nearly 8 out of 10 Americans support medical marijuana and we also know nearly 5 out of 10 American's support complete legalization. This is where Bob misses the boat and lumps us all in as pot smokers. Only 1 in 10 America's actually use or smoke pot Bob. Your side can't grasp the reality that you are in fact arguing with more non-pot smokers then actual pot smokers, this speaks volumes Bob, volumes.

And since you live in such fear of medical pot users, a guy in the following link has all sorts of disguised weapons you and Pat can arm yourselves with.
http://www.dontevenreply.com/view.php?post=84

DDC said...

Mr. Ellis,

For someone that claims to detest Marx as much as you do, you sure to sound a lot like him.

Your comments here could easily be dropped into any argument I've had with my lefty friends about Obamacare. I would argue about how much of a affront it was to personal liberty and they would shoot back with like

"You should quit thinking of yourself sometime and give serious consideration to trying to help make society better for everyone."


When I argue with gun-control nuts, they would often say things like:

"What would be an even bigger disaster will be the additional crime, dead young people and dead people of all ages.

I'm still trying to figure out having more armed people, armed in more places will make our society better. Still can't manage to see that one (and I'm guessing you can't either).

or

"How will having more guns make our community better?"

and

"Having more people armed more of the time will not make our community a better place.



Notice how I took your phrases and changed a couple of words? Notice how much you sound like the collectivists that don't care about personal liberty, but only how the collective will benefit from everything?

I'm hoping that you'll open your eyes and see how you have become what you claim to despise. Granting people the right to make their own decisions does not have any effect on your liberty. Putting the benefit of society above the liberty of the individual sounds like something I'd hear from Cory Heidelberger.

I do have to say, that I don't see how society benefits from keeping an incredibly effective and cheap medicine from some of the sickest people in society. I guess you feel that the suffering of those people is acceptable to you as long as the moral fiber of your "society" isn't disturbed.




p.s. My verification word for this post is "nobjubb".

Hilarious.

DDC said...

Mr. Ellis,

For someone that claims to detest Marx as much as you do, you sure to sound a lot like him.

Your comments here could easily be dropped into any argument I've had with my lefty friends about Obamacare. I would argue about how much of a affront it was to personal liberty and they would shoot back with like

"You should quit thinking of yourself sometime and give serious consideration to trying to help make society better for everyone."


When I argue with gun-control nuts, they would often say things like:

"What would be an even bigger disaster will be the additional crime, dead young people and dead people of all ages.

I'm still trying to figure out having more armed people, armed in more places will make our society better. Still can't manage to see that one (and I'm guessing you can't either).

or

"How will having more guns make our community better?"

and

"Having more people armed more of the time will not make our community a better place.



Notice how I took your phrases and changed a couple of words? Notice how much you sound like the collectivists that don't care about personal liberty, but only how the collective will benefit from everything?

I'm hoping that you'll open your eyes and see how you have become what you claim to despise. Granting people the right to make their own decisions does not have any effect on your liberty. Putting the benefit of society above the liberty of the individual sounds like something I'd hear from Cory Heidelberger.

I do have to say, that I don't see how society benefits from keeping an incredibly effective and cheap medicine from some of the sickest people in society. I guess you feel that the suffering of those people is acceptable to you as long as the moral fiber of your "society" isn't disturbed.




p.s. My verification word for this post is "nobjubb".

Hilarious.

DDC said...

Did the internet eat my last post? Dag nabbit.

DDC said...

Mr. Ellis,

For someone that claims to detest Marx as much as you do, you sure to sound a lot like him.

Your comments here could easily be dropped into any argument I've had with my lefty friends about Obamacare. I would argue about how much of a affront it was to personal liberty and they would shoot back with like

"You should quit thinking of yourself sometime and give serious consideration to trying to help make society better for everyone."


When I argue with gun-control nuts, they would often say things like:

"What would be an even bigger disaster will be the additional crime, dead young people and dead people of all ages.

I'm still trying to figure out having more armed people, armed in more places will make our society better. Still can't manage to see that one (and I'm guessing you can't either).

or

"How will having more guns make our community better?"

and

"Having more people armed more of the time will not make our community a better place.



Notice how I took your phrases and changed a couple of words? Notice how much you sound like the collectivists that don't care about personal liberty, but only how the collective will benefit from everything?

I'm hoping that you'll open your eyes and see how you have become what you claim to despise. Granting people the right to make their own decisions does not have any effect on your liberty. Putting the benefit of society above the liberty of the individual sounds like something I'd hear from Cory Heidelberger.

I do have to say, that I don't see how society benefits from keeping an incredibly effective and cheap medicine from some of the sickest people in society. I guess you feel that the suffering of those people is acceptable to you as long as the moral fiber of your "society" isn't disturbed.




p.s. My verification word for this post is "nobjubb".

Hilarious.

Bob Newland said...

DDC, I get an email notification whenever anyone posts a comment, so I saw your comment appear on email, but it never showed up on the site. So I copied and posted it from my email. It was there for a while, then it disappeared. So I just posted it again. Weird.

Nice logic, by the way.

DDC said...

Mr. Ellis,

For someone that claims to detest Marx as much as you do, you sure to sound a lot like him.

Your comments here could easily be dropped into any argument I've had with my lefty friends about Obamacare. I would argue about how much of a affront it was to personal liberty and they would shoot back with like

"You should quit thinking of yourself sometime and give serious consideration to trying to help make society better for everyone."


When I argue with gun-control nuts, they would often say things like:

"What would be an even bigger disaster will be the additional crime, dead young people and dead people of all ages.

I'm still trying to figure out having more armed people, armed in more places will make our society better. Still can't manage to see that one (and I'm guessing you can't either).

or

"How will having more guns make our community better?"

and

"Having more people armed more of the time will not make our community a better place.



Notice how I took your phrases and changed a couple of words? Notice how much you sound like the collectivists that don't care about personal liberty, but only how the collective will benefit from everything?

I'm hoping that you'll open your eyes and see how you have become what you claim to despise. Granting people the right to make their own decisions does not have any effect on your liberty. Putting the benefit of society above the liberty of the individual sounds like something I'd hear from Cory Heidelberger.

I do have to say, that I don't see how society benefits from keeping an incredibly effective and cheap medicine from some of the sickest people in society. I guess you feel that the suffering of those people is acceptable to you as long as the moral fiber of your "society" isn't disturbed.




p.s. My verification word for this post is "nobjubb".

Hilarious.

Bob Newland said...

I have posted DDC's comment four times, and it keeps disappearing. This time I am posting it under my name. Here it is.

DDC says:

Mr. Ellis,

For someone that claims to detest Marx as much as you do, you sure to sound a lot like him.

Your comments here could easily be dropped into any argument I've had with my lefty friends about Obamacare. I would argue about how much of a affront it was to personal liberty and they would shoot back with like

"You should quit thinking of yourself sometime and give serious consideration to trying to help make society better for everyone."


When I argue with gun-control nuts, they would often say things like:

"What would be an even bigger disaster will be the additional crime, dead young people and dead people of all ages.

I'm still trying to figure out having more armed people, armed in more places will make our society better. Still can't manage to see that one (and I'm guessing you can't either).

or

"How will having more guns make our community better?"

and

"Having more people armed more of the time will not make our community a better place.



Notice how I took your phrases and changed a couple of words? Notice how much you sound like the collectivists that don't care about personal liberty, but only how the collective will benefit from everything?

I'm hoping that you'll open your eyes and see how you have become what you claim to despise. Granting people the right to make their own decisions does not have any effect on your liberty. Putting the benefit of society above the liberty of the individual sounds like something I'd hear from Cory Heidelberger.

I do have to say, that I don't see how society benefits from keeping an incredibly effective and cheap medicine from some of the sickest people in society. I guess you feel that the suffering of those people is acceptable to you as long as the moral fiber of your "society" isn't disturbed.




p.s. My verification word for this post is "nobjubb".

Hilarious.

larry kurtz said...

Derek, We the People are all we have to fend off the reckless disregard industry has for Earth because the sons of bitches will leave a smouldering heap of molten metal if we don't.

"ainglods"

DDC said...

Newland,

Thanks, it took me about half an hour to get that typed up (baby crying, trying to work on photos), I was ticked off that it didn't show up!


Larry,

Gaia's a lot tougher than you give her credit for.


"begratt"