Tell me about Facebook?

[diesel_powered]

I'm in favour of that day. I mean: I hope the day comes when people actively decide what dirt they care about and what dirt they don't, rather than just being scandalized by scandal.

But the tide is turning, though, right? I mean, aren't both of the last two presidents confessed/convicted cokeheads?

I think only one was actually a cokehead. The other one just tried it.

What's going to be really interesting is that I'd predict marijuana legalization in maybe the next 15-20 years. I'll be interested to see how workplace attitudes change after that.

[davy]

What's going to be really interesting is that I'd predict marijuana legalization in maybe the next 15-20 years. I'll be interested to see how workplace attitudes change after that.

I know it ain't the popular stance--and it'll make a big fat hypocrite out of me--but I will vote against that bill every chance I get. I just can't fucking stand that stuff.

[elpollodiablo]

You'll vote against it because of your personal dislike for the stuff?

[davy]

I'm afraid so. That, or I won't vote on it at all. It's more than a dislike.

[morgan]

I hate it too, but I think it's dumb that it's illegal. Eh.

[Greg Nog]

I'm afraid so. That, or I won't vote on it at all. It's more than a dislike.

That seems sort of appalling.  I hate Juno, but I wouldn't advocate jail time for people who watch it.

[elpollodiablo]

I'm not a big fan of tattoos, either, but I don't think I'd support legislation outlawing them. Nor would I block legalization of the practice if it were illegal.

[diesel_powered]

I know it ain't the popular stance--and it'll make a big fat hypocrite out of me--but I will vote against that bill every chance I get. I just can't fucking stand that stuff.

You're entitled to your opinion and whatnot, but I absolutely can't get behind that being a justification for supporting or being against legislation.

[davy]

I know it's not all that rational; I just can't see myself voting to legalize something I've despised half my life. I've had close friends badly damaged by their marijuana habits; it always frustrated me when people spoke of it as if it were completely harmless. It's not harmless. But I understand your reactions. We've all got things we aren't completely rational about. The legalization of marijuana is one of mine.

Boy I wish I hadn't volunteered that information. I was feeling feisty I guess.

[Thermofusion]

There's general scientific consensus that marijuana use is considerably less dangerous and toxic than alcohol use, so many we'll take away your precious craft brews first.

[davy]

\\

I'm going to stop trying to argue my way out of this. I know I don't have a case.

[clare]

I don't think it's a problem that you don't like it, and don't want it to exist, Davy. I don't think it's a totally harmless drug for everyone...but maybe legalising it would help people make decisions about whether it's the drug for them in a more rational manner? I dunno. Can of worms. People are gonna look for altered states of reality all over the place and if legalising it makes it safer, that would be good.

[Thermofusion]

Speaking to d_p's original 15-20 year legalization theory, we're talking on the federal level, right? I think that's a little optimistic (I'd love to be proven wrong), but I do think within that same timeframe marijuana will be completely decriminalized for personal use in a significant chunk of states. I don't think a general decriminalization trend on the state level will sway federal lawmakers to legalize it, though, within that timeframe. A "tolerance" trend, though, maybe (no more Feds swooping in to bust dispensaries and shit). Again, would love to be proven wrong.

[Good Intentions]

The Dutch figured this out decades ago and are getting tired waiting for the rest of us to get a clue.

There are laws on the books making marijuana illegal, and quite recently there was a very big bust. However, Dutch law contains a principle of efficacy, which means that they don't enforce laws which prove to be ineffective, counterproductive, or uses resources which are better used elsewhere. Accordingly, there are legal guidelines which say that drug use below certain thresholds will not be prosecuted. It's not a matter discretion-- at the highest relevant legislative level, there has been decided that it's not worth the time of law enforcement to prosecute for anything below this threshold, and that has been enshrined in official policy. The actual Dutch drug laws aren't all that liberal, in fact, but they have a sane view on how to address the problem.

Except that all the foreigners swarming into their country, turning it into the party ghetto of Europe gets on their tits. Like I said, they're getting tired waiting for us to get with the programme.

[diesel_powered]

Well, that 15-20 years was pulled out of my ass with no consideration of implementation whatsoever, but I'd agree that overturning the entire institution surrounding marijuana prohibition (including refocusing D.E.A. and reforming the prison industry) couldn't possibly work that quickly. But meanwhile, on a state-by-state level (or even more local, considering that there still are dry counties in the U.S,) I could see some kind of swing towards decriminalization combined with federal tolerance, similar to the way it's been decriminalized in the Netherlands. And as far as I'm concerned, it should be taxed and regulated just like alcohol.

I mean, I guess from my experience with addicts, it seems that those who are determined to obliterate their relationship with a painful reality are going to do it, regardless of which avenue is legal or illegal. I understand the emotions that come along with seeing someone you love fall apart with the help of a drug of choice, but in my opinion, placing the blame on the chemical itself only serves to obfuscate the underlying problem that caused them to be driven to escape reality through chemicals in the first place. I have no problem with Davy's dislike of it and I don't respect him any less for it. He has every right to feel the way he does, but I just don't think that should necessarily be the foundation for creating public policy.

And I'll be the first to say that marijuana isn't harmless and I think it's irresponsible to say it is. But I'll also say that it's no more harmful than alcohol, and when it comes to addicts, I'll take the potheads in my life over the alcoholics any day.

[diesel_powered]

Also, I have to say this has been one of the most impressive thread derails in recent memory.

[jm]

But the tide is turning, though, right? I mean, aren't both of the last two presidents confessed/convicted cokeheads?

The thing to understand here is that a president doing something does not indicate that the tide is turning in re popular opinion of that thing.  It indicates that presidents with enough handwavey popular/media support get to do kind of just whatever.

[nonotyet]

Question.
I deleted my facebook account months and months ago because I hate it (no judging people who have them, it is just not for me), but yesterday I created one with my secondary email address because I was looking up an old friend from college--this was Fugazi-induced nostalgia--and I really wanted to get in touch with him, so I was like "HI DUDE HOW YOU BEEN I HATE FACEBOOK, HERE IS MY TUMBLR ADDRESS AND MY EMAIL IS ON THE ABOUT PAGE I WILL PROBABLY DELETE THIS ACCOUNT IN LIKE TWO DAYS BUT YOU SHOULD WRITE ME THERE"

and I just got an email from Facebook saying that there was "suspicious activity on my account" and it has been suspended. And now they want my PHONE NUMBER to VERIFY THAT I AM A PERSON.

What the fuck?!

ZUCKERBERG I AM COMING FOR YOU 

[ellaguru]

I think they consider deleting your account constitutes "suspicious behaviour".

[mixed cats]

Because you just did what spammers do! I went through the same shit for making more than ten gmail accounts. Then I ran out of cell phones to use for the text message codes.

[milly balgeary]

I'll delete all your accounts

[ellaguru]

Hey, milly, did you have you have a 10 000 post party? Because I'm seeing you all at 10 002 posts and I'm hoping I didn't miss the celebration.

[Little Sixes Little Nines]

funnily enough, that right there WAS milly's 10 000th post. and a fine one it was too.

[davy]

Wow, facebook, thanks for showing me 4 year-old photos of my 1.5 lb struggling-to-survive baby son while I messaged his mother about this week's parenting schedule! What swell memories!

 

[davy]

Anybody taken a chance on that new profile business? How is it?