Guest guest Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 There was no personal attack, it was to stir a response. wimpy was not part of the sentence, just a remark after words. A challenge, that being said he responded saying there was medical uses in so many words.Aynone that is afraid to speak against policies of the government is wimpy, I add now. Freedom of speech protects the ability to speak against government, just not threaten it of course. Also in the state of California it is legal provided there is a doctors persciption and there are health and safety codes for it.Tom might just be a federalist, instead of a states rights person.Inger Lorelei <inglori@...> wrote: I just woke up and trying to catch up with the lively debates here... , may I remind you again that personal attacks are not permitted here. You can state your opinion but not call others "wimpy". Tom, I wish you'd make up your mind if this topic is permitted for discussion or not. If you really don't want it discussed here at all for legal, personal or other reasons, why do you keep posting articles against it, when you know that's likely to spawn more discussion? Inger Re: Kajira No. I just have a different stance on this issue. Tom Administrator You seem afraid to disagree with big-brother. Wimpy.." FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. Check the Links section for more FAM forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 We discussed this. It's written as a rule in the FAQ section that topics of an illegal nature are not to be discussed. Since the use of marijauna for any reason - including medical - is illegal under federal law in the US, we should not be talking about it. I have allowed it to persist, I suppose, because I don't want to censor the members. And I feel sucked into the discussion and post articles sometimes. The posting of articles after the discussion has abated is probably something I shouldn't do, but unfortunately, these articles tend not to conveniently pop up during the debate. Until I have the proof of the articles to post, as Rainbow says, I am only posting opinions. But the articles themselves are truth, and cannot be argued with. Tom Administrator Tom, I wish you'd make up your mind if this topic is permitted for discussion or not. If you really don't want it discussed here at all for legal, personal or other reasons, why do you keep posting articles against it, when you know that's likely to spawn more discussion? Inger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 I agree with all that you have stated, . But mailing lists are not public and thus freedom of speech is not an automatic right in private lists. Much as I would love a more democratic set-up, it is still up to the list owner to dictate the rules. If he wants to put a ban on a subject being discussed, he in within legal right to do so and those who wish to discuss that subject anyway may start their own list to discuss these matters among themselves. Inger Re: Re: MMJ It is not illegal in California.. Also freedom of speech allows the discussion of this, even on the T.V, radio and in the newspapers.China, well that country doesn’t allow certain things to be said, like censoring things on internet.Here in the United States we can, my father served this country as well as others to protect those freedoms.I understand not talking about making a bomb to destroy people, that is talking about an illegal act by desiring to want to do it, still it is freedom of speech.Illegal, such as discussing methodologies of making drugs or committing crimes such as fraud. I sit in my chair, in the United States in the state of California where the voters, not a few judges passed it. Hundreds of thousands of voters or more? A few judges?Does the vote mean anything anymore? Well sure it does, that's why medical patients are not put in jail by the police and even certain agencies have said publicly with law enforcement now they will not take someone in if they have a doctors note.The technicalities of the argument and by comparison to true illegal items of discussion are in no way violating the rules. Compassion and ethicality of this topic are a concern, with respects to the quality of life of those whom are ill and whom have been authorized by the voters.If young minds are reading now, they have every right to be witness to issues in which they will grow up to vote for as well. What if your grandmother or grandfather, or even mother or father became so seriously ill that this medicine could help them, despite the true illegal circumstances of it being used for non-medical purposes?I think anyone that has any ethic and compassion would agree that if it helps prolong life, increase the quality of life such as less suffering then its properly used for medical purposes.It's only illegal by crossing state lines, otherwise peoples votes no longer matter and this is not the U.S I was brought up in and taught about in school. Nor is it the same country that my father served in and others died for.environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: We discussed this. It's written as a rule in the FAQ section that topics of an illegal nature are not to be discussed. Since the use of marijauna for any reason - including medical - is illegal under federal law in the US, we should not be talking about it. I have allowed it to persist, I suppose, because I don't want to censor the members. And I feel sucked into the discussion and post articles sometimes. The posting of articles after the discussion has abated is probably something I shouldn't do, but unfortunately, these articles tend not to conveniently pop up during the debate.Until I have the proof of the articles to post, as Rainbow says, I am only posting opinions. But the articles themselves are truth, and cannot be argued with.TomAdministratorTom, I wish you'd make up your mind if this topic is permitted fordiscussion or not. If you really don't want it discussed here at all forlegal, personal or other reasons, why do you keep posting articles againstit, when you know that's likely to spawn more discussion?Inger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 :> No where did I state it was legal or not legal for him to do so, Correct. It was I who informed YOU that he is - unfortuntately - within legal rights to decide what topics are permitted, since he is the list owner. > I think he doesnt agree with the topic and is taking the say away.> Excuse for a debate he can't win.That's what I think too, but I still cannot force him to permit it. Inger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 It's not often as an adult I am told what to say and not to say. When I was a child that was seldom told to me, as an adult it pisses me off. Maybe TOM doesnt realize this, he does now. I have been a member here for a long time, I have never been put on moderation or been banned. > > : > > No where did I state it was legal or not legal for him to do so, > > Correct. It was I who informed YOU that he is - unfortuntately - within legal rights to decide what topics are permitted, since he is the list owner. > > > I think he doesnt agree with the topic and is taking the say away. > > Excuse for a debate he can't win. > > That's what I think too, but I still cannot force him to permit it. > > Inger > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 You are an adult, but there are kids here. Part of being an adult is making sure little kids don't hear things they are not mature enough to process. So...consider that please. Tom Administrator It's not often as an adult I am told what to say and not to say. When I was a child that was seldom told to me, as an adult it pisses me off. Maybe TOM doesnt realize this, he does now. I have been a member here for a long time, I have never been put on moderation or been banned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 Most everyone has a medicine cabinet, little kids should be taught by there parents and by the examples of others not to take medications unless there doctors told them so. In how I put this topic forth, it's the same way, a medicine for the person that is ill only, not legalizing it for little kids. A bit over-protective, unless you are like some other religious folk who ignorantly call it the flower of satan. > > It's not often as an adult I am told what to say and not to say. > When I was a child that was seldom told to me, as an adult it pisses > me off. > > Maybe TOM doesnt realize this, he does now. I have been a member > here for a long time, I have never been put on moderation or been > banned. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 I once posted a study about how many kids tried pot before the age of 18. A huge amount in the US. 3 out of 5 or something like that. I'm sure no adult forced them to use it. Yet they did, because so many adults do say pot is " no big deal. " Tom Administrator A bit over-protective, unless you are like some other religious folk who ignorantly call it the flower of satan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.