Democrats Plan to Legalize Marijuana in 2021

[Uncensored2008]

Marijuana will be legalized no doubt about it. That will shift enforcement to fentanyl.

Which democrats will immediately demand be legalized.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you high?

No, he's clever.

You wouldn't understand.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Which democrats will immediately demand be legalized.

True. The goal is to kill people.

 

[Mr Natural]

When are they planning on doing this alledged legalization?

The year’s almost over.

 

[odanny]

How about the environment? The millions of tons of plastic used in the baggies needed to carry the grass around? Or how about the millions of tons of CO2 produced when said grass is burning?

Being stupid and ugly is no way to go thru life. I certainly hope you are not ugly.

 

[FA_Q2]

Corrected it. Huxley. Same beat, different work.

Well, no, no its not. They are actually 100 percent counter to each other and it hurts to even see someone equate the two. Granted, they are both dystopian novels on extremes however Orwell's 1984 was a direct statement on soviet Russia. He was critiquing communism. A brave New World, OTOH, is directly aimed at capitalism. It is a dystopian critique on capitalism. The soma is equitable to a continuous flow of disposable luxury goods,

 

[FA_Q2]

When are they planning on doing this alledged legalization?

The year’s almost over.

Meh. It should have happened years ago but the issue is to the point it no longer matters. The feds have given up on enforcement and most states have already moved forward with legalizing it on their own.

At this point, federal legalization is simply a forgone conclusion. It is just a matter of when.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Well, no, no its not. They are actually 100 percent counter to each other and it hurts to even see someone equate the two. Granted, they are both dystopian novels on extremes however Orwell's 1984 was a direct statement on soviet Russia. He was critiquing communism. A brave New World, OTOH, is directly aimed at capitalism. It is a dystopian critique on capitalism. The soma is equitable to a continuous flow of disposable luxury goods,

Well-parsed~

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, no, no its not. They are actually 100 percent counter to each other and it hurts to even see someone equate the two. Granted, they are both dystopian novels on extremes however Orwell's 1984 was a direct statement on soviet Russia. He was critiquing communism. A brave New World, OTOH, is directly aimed at capitalism. It is a dystopian critique on capitalism. The soma is equitable to a continuous flow of disposable luxury goods,

What the hell are you talking about?

Idiocy.

"A Brave New World" explores a society where individualism is utterly crushed by the totalitarian state. Mustapha Mond is the "world controller." Though his society is far more egalitarian than the living hell of "1984" it was still a rigid and absolute dictatorship where caste was genetically enforce (Alpha, Beta, Epsilon). A one world socialist dictatorship which Huxley actually called the "World State" rules the globe with an iron fist. Even ones body is property of the state and sex is compulsory for women (as it was under Lenin) to any man of equal or higher class who desires it. One "savage reservation" provides the protagonist with a glimpse of individualism and liberty, leading to bringing the "savage" John back to London and the socialist "utopia."

Have you even read the book?

I'm doubting it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well-parsed~

You never made it through "The Cat in the Hat," you sure the fuck never read "Brave New World."

 

[Rigby5]

How about the environment? The millions of tons of plastic used in the baggies needed to carry the grass around? Or how about the millions of tons of CO2 produced when said grass is burning?

The baggies can be reused, but many people use different containers, like tobacco cans.
Burning pot produces no emissions because that is only releasing the carbon sequestered when the plant was growing.
It is zero sum.
It is not like fossil fuel, where the carbon was sequestered hundreds of millions of years ago, underground.

 

[FA_Q2]

What the hell are you talking about?

Idiocy.

"A Brave New World" explores a society where individualism is utterly crushed by the totalitarian state. Mustapha Mond is the "world controller." Though his society is far more egalitarian than the living hell of "1984" it was still a rigid and absolute dictatorship where caste was genetically enforce (Alpha, Beta, Epsilon). A one world socialist dictatorship which Huxley actually called the "World State" rules the globe with an iron fist. Even ones body is property of the state and sex is compulsory for women (as it was under Lenin) to any man of equal or higher class who desires it. One "savage reservation" provides the protagonist with a glimpse of individualism and liberty, leading to bringing the "savage" John back to London and the socialist "utopia."

Have you even read the book?

I'm doubting it.

Yes I have. You seem to have missed the entire premise of the book. Henry Ford was Huxley's prime focus of the novel itself and a direct statement on US capitalism of the time. There are many direct references to Ford in the novel.
HOW were those strict caste systems enforced in a Brave New World? It was through consumerism and keeping the masses contented with it. This was what Huxley thought the dystopian extreme of capitalism would come to, people turned into perfect machines on an infinite number of assembly lines to feed the ever constant consumer need. He mentions over and over again that the people are contented with everything they could want. The wealthy elites controlling them through those goods and grooming them to be that perfect fit. None of that makes a lick of sense in a communistic worldview where the goal really is not working or producing. You will note that in 1984 there is not even an inkling about production or goods in that novel. They are not relevent to the party control in that model.

I was looking for another conversation I remembered in the novel that does this better but this section is very good as well:

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley : chapter sixteen

chapter sixteen of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

www.huxley.net

From Ch. 16:
"Almost nobody. I'm one of the very few. It's prohibited, you see. But as I make the laws here, I can also break them. With impunity, Mr. Marx," he added, turning to Bernard. "Which I'm afraid you can't do."
Bernard sank into a yet more hopeless misery.
"But why is it prohibited?" asked the Savage. In the excitement of meeting a man who had read Shakespeare he had momentarily forgotten everything else.
The Controller shrugged his shoulders. "Because it's old; that's the chief reason. We haven't any use for old things here."
"Even when they're beautiful?"
"Particularly when they're beautiful. Beauty's attractive, and we don't want people to be attracted by old things. We want them to like the new ones."
"But the new ones are so stupid and horrible. Those plays, where there's nothing but helicopters flying about and you feel the people kissing." He made a grimace. "Goats and monkeys!" Only in Othello's word could he find an adequate vehicle for his contempt and hatred.
"Nice tame animals, anyhow," the Controller murmured parenthetically.
"Why don't you let them see Othello instead?"
"I've told you; it's old. Besides, they couldn't understand it."
Yes, that was true. He remembered how Helmholtz had laughed at Romeo and Juliet. "Well then," he said, after a pause, "something new that's like Othello, and that they could understand."
"That's what we've all been wanting to write," said Helmholtz, breaking a long silence.
"And it's what you never will write," said the Controller. "Because, if it were really like Othello nobody could understand it, however new it might be. And if were new, it couldn't possibly be like Othello."
"Why not?"
"Yes, why not?" Helmholtz repeated. He too was forgetting the unpleasant realities of the situation. Green with anxiety and apprehension, only Bernard remembered them; the others ignored him. "Why not?"
"Because our world is not the same as Othello's world. You can't make flivvers without steel–and you can't make tragedies without social instability. The world's stable now. People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can't get. They're well off; they're safe; they're never ill; they're not afraid of death; they're blissfully ignorant of passion and old age; they're plagued with no mothers or fathers; they've got no wives, or children, or lovers to feel strongly about; they're so conditioned that they practically can't help behaving as they ought to behave. And if anything should go wrong, there's soma. Which you go and chuck out of the window in the name of liberty, Mr. Savage. Liberty!" He laughed. "Expecting Deltas to know what liberty is! And now expecting them to understand Othello! My good boy!"
The Savage was silent for a little. "All the same," he insisted obstinately, "Othello's good, Othello's better than those feelies."
"Of course it is," the Controller agreed. "But that's the price we have to pay for stability. You've got to choose between happiness and what people used to call high art. We've sacrificed the high art. We have the feelies and the scent organ instead."
"But they don't mean anything."
"They mean themselves; they mean a lot of agreeable sensations to the audience."
"But they're … they're told by an idiot."
The Controller laughed. "You're not being very polite to your friend, Mr. Watson. One of our most distinguished Emotional Engineers …"
"But he's right," said Helmholtz gloomily. "Because it is idiotic. Writing when there's nothing to say …"
"Precisely. But that requires the most enormous ingenuity. You're making flivvers out of the absolute minimum of steel–works of art out of practically nothing but pure sensation."
The Savage shook his head. "It all seems to me quite horrible."
"Of course it does. Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the over-compensations for misery. And, of course, stability isn't nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand."



The line here is also good:
"[The Savage] picked it up and opened it. MY LIFE AND WORK, BY OUR FORD. The book had been published at Detroit by the Society for the Propagation of Fordian Knowledge.

Direct reference to Henry Ford and it directly ties the basis of the world to him. He is framed as a religious tenant for the worlds foundation.

So, Mr. I Don't Think You Read the Book, I certainly have read it and if you did read it you utterly missed the entire concept of the book itself. Considering this is one of my favorite genres and this book is one of the best in it, how could I not.

 

[FA_Q2]

Also worth noting:


One of the most entertaining debates from reason with a few professional readings from the 2 books. I think they got it wrong in the end but it is still entertaining

 

[Turtlesoup]

I'm sure the Bible-belching conservatives will recoil in horror, but the truth is, marijuana is a far better, and safer, alternative to alcohol.

Minorities have always been most impacted by marijuana laws, ruining far too many lives for nothing. This is the first step, the next would be expungement.

Yeah, all they need on top of everything else is more drugs to make them dumber.

 

[bendog]

Yeah, all they need on top of everything else is more drugs to make them dumber.

The only people without weed are those who don't want it or don't want it if they have to break a law.

 

[Turtlesoup]

The baggies can be reused, but many people use different containers, like tobacco cans.
Burning pot produces no emissions because that is only releasing the carbon sequestered when the plant was growing.
It is zero sum.
It is not like fossil fuel, where the carbon was sequestered hundreds of millions of years ago, underground.

It's exactly like burning fossil fuels.......what do you think makes oil?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes I have. You seem to have missed the entire premise of the book. Henry Ford was Huxley's prime focus of the novel itself and a direct statement on US capitalism of the time. There are many direct references to Ford in the novel.
HOW were those strict caste systems enforced in a Brave New World? It was through consumerism and keeping the masses contented with it. This was what Huxley thought the dystopian extreme of capitalism would come to, people turned into perfect machines on an infinite number of assembly lines to feed the ever constant consumer need. He mentions over and over again that the people are contented with everything they could want. The wealthy elites controlling them through those goods and grooming them to be that perfect fit. None of that makes a lick of sense in a communistic worldview where the goal really is not working or producing. You will note that in 1984 there is not even an inkling about production or goods in that novel. They are not relevent to the party control in that model.

I was looking for another conversation I remembered in the novel that does this better but this section is very good as well:

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley : chapter sixteen

chapter sixteen of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

www.huxley.net

From Ch. 16:
"Almost nobody. I'm one of the very few. It's prohibited, you see. But as I make the laws here, I can also break them. With impunity, Mr. Marx," he added, turning to Bernard. "Which I'm afraid you can't do."
Bernard sank into a yet more hopeless misery.
"But why is it prohibited?" asked the Savage. In the excitement of meeting a man who had read Shakespeare he had momentarily forgotten everything else.
The Controller shrugged his shoulders. "Because it's old; that's the chief reason. We haven't any use for old things here."
"Even when they're beautiful?"
"Particularly when they're beautiful. Beauty's attractive, and we don't want people to be attracted by old things. We want them to like the new ones."
"But the new ones are so stupid and horrible. Those plays, where there's nothing but helicopters flying about and you feel the people kissing." He made a grimace. "Goats and monkeys!" Only in Othello's word could he find an adequate vehicle for his contempt and hatred.
"Nice tame animals, anyhow," the Controller murmured parenthetically.
"Why don't you let them see Othello instead?"
"I've told you; it's old. Besides, they couldn't understand it."
Yes, that was true. He remembered how Helmholtz had laughed at Romeo and Juliet. "Well then," he said, after a pause, "something new that's like Othello, and that they could understand."
"That's what we've all been wanting to write," said Helmholtz, breaking a long silence.
"And it's what you never will write," said the Controller. "Because, if it were really like Othello nobody could understand it, however new it might be. And if were new, it couldn't possibly be like Othello."
"Why not?"
"Yes, why not?" Helmholtz repeated. He too was forgetting the unpleasant realities of the situation. Green with anxiety and apprehension, only Bernard remembered them; the others ignored him. "Why not?"
"Because our world is not the same as Othello's world. You can't make flivvers without steel–and you can't make tragedies without social instability. The world's stable now. People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can't get. They're well off; they're safe; they're never ill; they're not afraid of death; they're blissfully ignorant of passion and old age; they're plagued with no mothers or fathers; they've got no wives, or children, or lovers to feel strongly about; they're so conditioned that they practically can't help behaving as they ought to behave. And if anything should go wrong, there's soma. Which you go and chuck out of the window in the name of liberty, Mr. Savage. Liberty!" He laughed. "Expecting Deltas to know what liberty is! And now expecting them to understand Othello! My good boy!"
The Savage was silent for a little. "All the same," he insisted obstinately, "Othello's good, Othello's better than those feelies."
"Of course it is," the Controller agreed. "But that's the price we have to pay for stability. You've got to choose between happiness and what people used to call high art. We've sacrificed the high art. We have the feelies and the scent organ instead."
"But they don't mean anything."
"They mean themselves; they mean a lot of agreeable sensations to the audience."
"But they're … they're told by an idiot."
The Controller laughed. "You're not being very polite to your friend, Mr. Watson. One of our most distinguished Emotional Engineers …"
"But he's right," said Helmholtz gloomily. "Because it is idiotic. Writing when there's nothing to say …"
"Precisely. But that requires the most enormous ingenuity. You're making flivvers out of the absolute minimum of steel–works of art out of practically nothing but pure sensation."
The Savage shook his head. "It all seems to me quite horrible."
"Of course it does. Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the over-compensations for misery. And, of course, stability isn't nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand."



The line here is also good:
"[The Savage] picked it up and opened it. MY LIFE AND WORK, BY OUR FORD. The book had been published at Detroit by the Society for the Propagation of Fordian Knowledge.

Direct reference to Henry Ford and it directly ties the basis of the world to him. He is framed as a religious tenant for the worlds foundation.

So, Mr. I Don't Think You Read the Book, I certainly have read it and if you did read it you utterly missed the entire concept of the book itself. Considering this is one of my favorite genres and this book is one of the best in it, how could I not.

Ford was also a hero to Joseph Stalin.

Huxley himself wrote that the novel was a dystopian critique of SOCIALIST utopias.

About 3 years about I read this and 1984 back to back on vacation (they're free on Kindle) so the story is pretty fresh to me.

Perhaps you read it in high school and have simply forgotten what it's about. But even the reference you cite to support your misinterpretation of this classic refutes you;

{ People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can't get. They're well off; they're safe; they're never ill; they're not afraid of death; they're blissfully ignorant of passion and old age; they're plagued with no mothers or fathers; they've got no wives, or children, or lovers to feel strongly about; they're so conditioned that they practically can't help behaving as they ought to behave. And if anything should go wrong, there's soma.}

Marxism in a nutshell - though Huxley was aiming more at the Fabians of England.

 

[FA_Q2]

Ford was also a hero to Joseph Stalin.

Huxley himself wrote that the novel was a dystopian critique of SOCIALIST utopias.

About 3 years about I read this and 1984 back to back on vacation (they're free on Kindle) so the story is pretty fresh to me.

Perhaps you read it in high school and have simply forgotten what it's about. But even the reference you cite to support your misinterpretation of this classic refutes you;

{ People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can't get. They're well off; they're safe; they're never ill; they're not afraid of death; they're blissfully ignorant of passion and old age; they're plagued with no mothers or fathers; they've got no wives, or children, or lovers to feel strongly about; they're so conditioned that they practically can't help behaving as they ought to behave. And if anything should go wrong, there's soma.}

Marxism in a nutshell - though Huxley was aiming more at the Fabians of England.

... then you do not understand Marxism. Marxism is utterly unconcerned with production and the point is NOT to produce a continuous flow of disposable goods. That is one of the core thins that Marxism was railing against. Once again, this is why 1984 did not even mention production. It is not an issue under soviet style Marxism. Likely one of the things that helped mass deprivation along.

The ENTIRE book, ALL OF IT, is centered around the continuous production and consumption of goods. Period. THAT is the point of Brave New World. Every societal structure is established to ensure consumption. They engineer the deltas to hate nature because nature does not allow for production, no one can make it. That is counter to socialism where consumption should be controlled to be evenly distributed. They are programmed to love sports that take place in nature though in order to prop up the transportation industry. They do not nationalize the transportation industry. There is no government cab - that is socialism. That is what you see in 1984, a chocolate ration card to get your chocolate ration from the government chocolate supply. That is not Marxism in any shape or form, it is crony capitalism.

If you think Marxism is an economic model based on consumption then I do not know what to tell you. You misunderstand the book because you misunderstand the political underpinnings in the first place.

 

[Uncensored2008]

... then you do not understand Marxism. Marxism is utterly unconcerned with production and the point is NOT to produce a continuous flow of disposable goods. That is one of the core thins that Marxism was railing against. Once again, this is why 1984 did not even mention production. It is not an issue under soviet style Marxism. Likely one of the things that helped mass deprivation along.

The ENTIRE book, ALL OF IT, is centered around the continuous production and consumption of goods. Period. THAT is the point of Brave New World. Every societal structure is established to ensure consumption. They engineer the deltas to hate nature because nature does not allow for production, no one can make it. That is counter to socialism where consumption should be controlled to be evenly distributed. They are programmed to love sports that take place in nature though in order to prop up the transportation industry. They do not nationalize the transportation industry. There is no government cab - that is socialism. That is what you see in 1984, a chocolate ration card to get your chocolate ration from the government chocolate supply. That is not Marxism in any shape or form, it is crony capitalism.

If you think Marxism is an economic model based on consumption then I do not know what to tell you. You misunderstand the book because you misunderstand the political underpinnings in the first place.

Yer kidding, right?

Industrialization Debate

Texts Images Visual Essays Other Resources Subject essay: Lewis Siegelbaum The industrialization debate of the mid-1920s was a key turning point in the history of the Soviet Union…

soviethistory.msu.edu

Industrialization and production were obsessions of the USSR, both under Lenin and Stalin.

The key element of the Communists was that central state planning would provide a more efficient system of mass production.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yer kidding, right?

Industrialization Debate

Texts Images Visual Essays Other Resources Subject essay: Lewis Siegelbaum The industrialization debate of the mid-1920s was a key turning point in the history of the Soviet Union…

soviethistory.msu.edu

Industrialization and production were obsessions of the USSR, both under Lenin and Stalin.

The key element of the Communists was that central state planning would provide a more efficient system of mass production.

No, the key element is that central planning would allow for a more just distribution. The overall production is not relevant, should it decrease that is not an issue. You will note that the debate, according to your source, was over:
"the pace of industrialization, sources of investment, pricing and wages policies, and other related matters would determine the Soviet Union’s answer to the question of how to overcome “backwardness” in the modern era, serving for much of the rest of the world as the only real alternative to a capitalist framework of development."

Communism does not seek to maximize the amount of transportation you consume. The transportation industry in a capitalist nation, and A Brave New World, do. Communism seeks to distribute the limited transportation that is there to everyone evenly. That is why a capitalist critique like A Brave New World has a chapter on how they maximized transportation, an example of capitalism's wealth, and 1984 instead spends several chapters explaining that the chocolate rations are getting smaller and smaller, an example of communism's deprivation.

Noticed what is lacking there? Efficiency and maximization of production, things that a capitalist industrialization effort would focus on. Capitalism is ALL about efficiency, making more for less. Production is not the point in a communistic society though so it is not production that matters but 'justice' and, most notably, the pace of industrialization.

A Brave New World, OTOH, is focused on both of those concepts, maximizing profit and maximizing efficiency, which is where the entire structured class system comes from. Look, even high schoolers understand this concept. It is well established in the literature which is why you pulled up an obscure essay on a related debate in the soviet union. Nothing backs up the hole you are trying to fit the book in. But if you want to go to essays:

Really DIRECTLY states what Huxley was going for in his book. No fan of socialism, he was also not a fan of American capitalism either.

https://opentextbc.ca/englishliterature/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2014/06/brave-new-world-and-the-rationalization-of-industry-3.pdf

...to decide whether we shall go to hell by communist express train or capitalist racing motor car, by individualist
'bus or collectivist tram running on the rails of state control. The destination's the same in every case . . . . They
all believe in industrialism in one form or another, they all believe in Americanization.'

Pretty much hits the nail on the head with the novel as well.

Huxley's Critique of Capitalism in 'Brave New World' | Bartleby

Free Essay: In his novel Brave New World, Aldous Huxley confronts the way in which mass production and capitalism serve to disempower the individual by...

www.bartleby.com

"In his novel Brave New World, Aldous Huxley confronts the way in which mass production and capitalism serve to disempower the individual by cementing a self-reinforcing system of consumption and production wherein the individual is reduced to his or her utilitarian function.
...
Huxley's critique of capitalism remains the most prominent, if only because the novel includes explicit references to the father of modern capitalist production, Henry Ford. Huxley's critique of capitalism becomes most apparent in the third chapter of the novel, when the tour group is taken over by Mustapha Mond, "his fordship" and the Resident Controller for Western Europe."

It is also worth noting here that Communism seeks to abolish classes, they goal is a classless society. Something else present in 1984, there really were no classes. There was simply the party, those not in the party (basically the enemy) and the enemy. Huxley's book focuses on class as a function of consumerism. AKA, capitalism. Examples continue to abound.

Ones to the contrary... none.

Really it boils down to one simple concept: do you think Capitalism or Communism creates a situation with an overabundance of goods and luxuries?

Because that really is the key here. Communism specifically does not do that and, as modern societies have proven, it leads to horrible depravation. That is the setting in 1984. Deprivation. Capitalism maximizes goods and creates a glut of cheap, widely available disposable goods and services. That is the setting in A Brave New World. Gluttonous excesses. They are both dystopian novels of how society uses that to control the population. One is crystal clear in its depictions as a Capitalist dystopia filled with an abundance of pleasure and an utter lack of need. One is a depiction of a socialist dystopia filled with deprivation and obedience obtained through power. One keeps you controlled by keeping you fat and happy, one keeps you controlled by keeping you in fear.