How much can you hate a plant?

Marko the Munchkinwrangler sums up the social effects of prohibitions in the most eloquent way.

This entry was posted in civil rights and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to How much can you hate a plant?

  1. LarryArnold says:

    At least one prohibition hit a roadblock today.

    In a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a ban on carrying concealed weapons in Illinois — the only remaining state where carrying concealed weapons is entirely illegal — and gave lawmakers 180 days to write a law that legalizes it.

    • Stuart the Viking says:


      I read that decision. It looks to me like the judge isn’t so much requiring that they make concealed carry legal, he is just requiring them to allow SOME FORM of outside-your-house carry (either open or concealed). Expect the hoops one has to jump through to get a permit to do so to be nearly impossible, and the penalties for messing up to be severe. Illinois politics is dominated by Chicago.

      Meanwhile, here in Florida, we will be reaching 1 MILLION active CC permits very soon. And the blood in the streets is reaching knee deep… not.


  2. Sha-ul says:

    How much can you hate a plant?
    In the case of poison ivy, quite a bit.

  3. Secede says:

    “How much can you hate a plant?”
    Enough to be a vegetarian?

  4. Lyle says:

    I hate certain plants a little bit (we have a rather nasty, spiny weed that forms thick matts along the ground, we call tarweed, here in the inland Northwest for example. Hurts like hell if you walk into it with exposed skin, and the little spines break off in you) but far more than I hate that I love liberty. So hands off, bro., and leave my neighbors alone, or we’re gonna have a problem.

  5. Stuart the Viking says:

    I once brought up the idea of legalization to my grandfather. He shouted “Might as well make MURDER legal!”

    wow… I guess you can hate a plant A LOT.


  6. Lyle says:

    “Might as well make MURDER legal!”

    Some people are totally unaware, or blind, to the difference between a personal choice (like using pot) and a rights violation (like theft or murder). That is one of our biggest problems on Earth.

    • Stuart the Viking says:

      HAHA!!!!! Granddad WAS blind (literally).

      I don’t think that had anything to do with his hatred of the weed. I always wondered just why he felt that way but was never able to have a sane, calm conversation on the subject with him. He hated it that much. He’s gone now (earlier this year) so I guess I’ll never have the chance.


      • Kristophr says:

        Ditchweed was originally the drug of choice for blacks, musicians, and conterculture types during the early part of the 20th Century.

        Carefully examine the lyrics for “One Toke Over the Line”.

        Old farts with a hate on for hippies, jazz musicians, and blacks got completely on board with prohibiting weed as a means of preserving public morality.

  7. Federico says:

    Hi oleg.
    Wanted to say you thanks for your photos, as a starting photographer i use a lot of your photographs as reference and inspiration, well in Italy, even if we are the land of Beretta, we can’t use and have weapons freely like in the us, so i’ll stick to airsoft for now.
    Keep it up and great job!

    • Lyle says:


      How about percussion arms, such as the beautiful reproductions of Colt and Remington percussion revolvers of the 1860s, made in Italy by such companies as Uberti, Pietta, et al? Are those restricted as modern firearms?

      • Federico says:

        Yep, everything that shoots at more than 1 joule is considered “weapon” And people 18+ are allowed to buy without license only the 7.5 joule airguns like diana etc.

        any other firearm can only be purchased by licence:

        To get a firearm detention licence you have to:
        Be 18+
        Get a medical and psychological check
        Go to national shooting range and take a gun safety course
        200€ and six months later you can have your weapons
        every 5 years you have to re-do the medical and psycological check.
        THIS if you are buying them just to keep them in home and shooting at the range.

        If you want to use them for hunting you have to pay like 1000€ of taxes every year + med/psico check every year

        If you want them for Self-defence (taking them around) well you can’t: If you want to protect your shop then you have to give them a good reason like: i’m a jeweller or i move a lot of moneys, I have the shop in a ghetto-like place or in a very isolated place etc. AND you have to give them the exact route you use to bring you and your weapon from house to shop and never go out from that route with your weapon with you.

        In italy there is a really shitty self-defense rule: If the thief have a knife i can’t shoot him, i have to take him down with a knife or inferior weapon (or just scare him with my gun if i can): there are a lot of jewellers beaten almost to death that shoot at their offenders (without killing them), and got a lot of trouble with the law

        If he runs i can’t shoot him at the bag, if the thief have a toy gun, and i shoot him, well i’m in deep shit.

        The only ones who can bring around their weapons (between civilians) are the security guards, that have a specific license

        Sorry for my english.

        Also, not firearm but if you want to take around a knife you have to put it in a place where it can take you at least 5-10 seconds to take them out, like in a bag.

        Yes, pretty easy life for muggers and thief here…

  8. Federico says:

    Forgot to mention:
    Police give you the route to take from home to shooting range and you can’t go out from it

    Automatic weapons are forbidden, they are considered “War weapons” so only military can have them.

  9. Rivrdog says:

    Hate weed? No, but I happen to be risk adverse to a sane degree, and so I want to see users of all intoxicants have a limit so that the public doesn’t have to absorb more risk, and I want to see that limit enforced.

    As we all know, there IS such a limit for the intoxicant ethyl alcohol. There are badly-enforced restrictions on intoxicating pharmaceuticals, but they ARE written and could be enforced.

    Interesting to note that in Oregon, one of the first Medical Cannabis states, there is no nanogram limit for THC in the blood. None. At least when WA passed their de-criminalization of cannabis, they put a nanogram limit on it, and everyone voted for it up there anyway, but now they are putting up a mighty whine that more than a couple of bong hits put users over the limit, and probably MOST medical cannabis users are over the limit all the time. Being over the limit, of course, means you can’t operate a motor vehicle on the public roads.

    Seems curious to me that MADD, SADD, none of them are making the slightest fuss about high drivers like they do about having even one ounce of liquor and then driving. Could the fix be in there?

    The science of use is not there for users of cannabis. With alcohol, the strength of alcohol by volume is there for all to see, so you know just how much alcohol you are getting. If you brew your own, you can still measure the alcohol and do the arithmetic.

    With cannabis, the amount of THC in it is all over the map, and also the method of intake radically changes the amount of THC that the body absorbs. There is currently no way to know how high you really are, because a THC blood test has to be done by a medical lab, there is no field test which the cannabis user can do.

    In the newly-legal states, you will have a lot of new users, and one user just killed a pedestrian in Vancouver WA yesterday. Driving a car is nothing like blowing a good jazz horn.

    • Paul Koning says:

      Clearly the zero-aggression principle ( requires that you respect the rights of others when you do things to yourself. That means not endangering them.
      So what’s the conclusion? Setting specific limits is one, but that’s limited to the specific intoxicants that regulators have though of. It also assumes that everyone is equally affected by a given blood level, which is unlikely to be true. It also ignores other impairment (asleep, distracted).
      A general “driving while impaired” rule, tested with something similar to the classic “field sobriety test”, should work better.

    • Kristophr says:

      Strawman argument, Rivrdog. No one here is advocating driving while intoxicated.

      People also commit manslaughter when they get behind the wheel dead drunk as well.

      I do not care what the means of intoxication is.

      If you drive while intoxicated, you need to be removed from any highway I use. Preferably in some manner that involves a great deal of pain, expense, and embarrassment.

  10. Rusty P Bucket says:

    I don’t hat e the plant I hate the morons that use it and lie about it and defend it.

    No, my rights are not volated because some idiot or stupid kid cant smoke pot. as noted above, pot was an intoxicant that came from the gutter and contrary to the brainless kids and failed liberal soc ial experiments – it should have stayed there. Stupidity like this discredits the lib rtarians – which is unfortunate because the bulk of their creed has merit. anyone that advocates the legalization of drugs is an idiot and no bones about it.

Comments are closed.