# Busted at Crested Butte???



## cuzin

Yet another stellar use of taxpayer dollars:

Feds Target Crested Butte 'Smoke Shacks' | SNOWBOARD MAGAZINE

My favorite rationale for removing smoke shacks: 
"The structures pose several problems, Nielsen says. He says people tend to congregate around the structures, and then skier-on-skier collisions could occur."


----------



## Snowhere

Inspecting ski areas for illegal structures is a routine procedure, Forest Service patrol captain Dan Nielsen told the News. “We’ve worked with the other resorts and found similar structures.”
The structures pose several problems, Nielson explained in the newspaper report. They can create hazards for unsuspecting skiers and often result in tree damage in the immediate vicinity. Damaged trees can lead to a bark beetle infestation, he said.






Get real! How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you try to say that a lean-to in the woods is going to lead to bark beetle infestation! Talk about insulting the public at large!

I was looking for my local one and could not find it. I am sure ours is buried under the 400+ inches of snow we have gotten so far this year.


----------



## mjpowhound

Yeah, cause those things are always built right on the edge of the most popular runs on the mountain...


----------



## liquidchaos

Undercover USFS agents lurking at smoke-huts! - Teton Gravity Research Forums
the tgr maggots were all over this, plenty of ranting and raving about forest service bs. what happened to burning down while you are waiting for that person you didnt want to be with?


----------



## David Spiegel

Personally, I have no problem with people smoking pot if that is their deal. I do think, however, it is retarded to ski while high. You put yourself and others at risk because you are not in complete control of your reflexes.

All that aside, can you really complain about being busted for doing something illegal? Grow up. Quit your bitching. Smoke on your own private property.


----------



## yetigonecrazy

I can't even begin to tell you the shitstorm this has caused here at CB....

The problem isnt crested butte, its part of a multi-resort sweep that is being funded federally. of course they arent having as much of a problem as they are here but thats because CB has been so lax with their shack/stoner worries since day 1. CBMR's official position on the huts is to just leave them standing, because they know and are aware that for every one they blow up, we'll just build four more, better hidden.

Like mjpowhound said, they're more after the ones that are RIGHT off the runs. Ones like the double decker, which yeah, its a sweet shack, but it's right off a blue run and I cant tell you how many times ive been rolled up on by little kids in that one..."Oh hey, guys come look, I found a treehouse!!!" Or the penalty box....or the window.....Yeah, those are too close for comfort. It sucks, I've had three close friends get busted by that and heard of several more who have too.

Its not all bad though, the more remote the shack is, the less chance you have to get roused. Ones located in the extremes or in advanced areas are still safe to go to, as the "feds" are usually no better than blue skiers. So the ones that take lots of maneuvering and navigation to find like the bakery and the forest caves are still golden!

as for Mr Spiegel's comments I would say....I tend to ski better when I am high. I focus more, Im more aware of the consequences than when Im not. As a result I usually will slow down a little bit and enjoy the mountain more. I would also say that at any given time (at least at cb) probably 90% of the "Local" riders there that day are high. Skiing and smoking weed just go hand in hand too well for people to make a point of it now.


----------



## cuzin

Hey David - I think you're a total douche bag. Not in complete control of my reflexes? Is that a necessary prerequisite to go skiing? You sound like you hang out with icantride on school marm. Is that what the ski instructor told you last week in your advanced beginner class? Did you graduate to the blue squares? Oops, you were probably getting worn out, and thus not in complete control of your reflexes, and called it a day around noon. 

As for "complaining about getting busted for doing something illegal," that's not the issue that was raised by the post or the article. This is expending time, money and effort on something that has no negative impact, and then supported by disingenuous logic. It has been acknowledged that for every shack taken down, that several more will go up, so the "tree beetle" argument fails. The other rationale, that it creates a hazard because people "congregate around them," doesn't work, either. Presumably, those people GOING TO a smoke shack are NOT YET HIGH, which would mean that it is more dangerous to ski sober. (Probably true in my case, because I'm pissed off that I don't have doobage). And if "people congregating" is a hazard, well then we should remove all lodges, lift lines and parking lots, because those places are just accidents waiting to happen.

I don't like being called a retard, you ass munch. And probably neither do the other 90% of the people on the mountain who are having a better time than you. To pull the "it's illegal, so don't bitch" argument in relation to antiquated laws that create far more social costs than benefits, and are based solely on a sense of morality that a vast segment of society doesn't share, is dense and paternalistic. 

And as for smoking and skiing being dangerous, stay on the greens. I will be too and that way we won't run into each other. Lame dick.


----------



## David Spiegel

cuzin said:


> Hey David - I think you're a total douche bag. Not in complete control of my reflexes? Is that a necessary prerequisite to go skiing? You sound like you hang out with icantride on school marm. Is that what the ski instructor told you last week in your advanced beginner class? Did you graduate to the blue squares? Oops, you were probably getting worn out, and thus not in complete control of your reflexes, and called it a day around noon.
> 
> As for "complaining about getting busted for doing something illegal," that's not the issue that was raised by the post or the article. This is expending time, money and effort on something that has no negative impact, and then supported by disingenuous logic. It has been acknowledged that for every shack taken down, that several more will go up, so the "tree beetle" argument fails. The other rationale, that it creates a hazard because people "congregate around them," doesn't work, either. Presumably, those people GOING TO a smoke shack are NOT YET HIGH, which would mean that it is more dangerous to ski sober. (Probably true in my case, because I'm pissed off that I don't have doobage). And if "people congregating" is a hazard, well then we should remove all lodges, lift lines and parking lots, because those places are just accidents waiting to happen.
> 
> I don't like being called a retard, you ass munch. And probably neither do the other 90% of the people on the mountain who are having a better time than you. To pull the "it's illegal, so don't bitch" argument in relation to antiquated laws that create far more social costs than benefits, and are based solely on a sense of morality that a vast segment of society doesn't share, is dense and paternalistic.
> 
> And as for smoking and skiing being dangerous, stay on the greens. I will be too and that way we won't run into each other. Lame dick.


Maybe you should smoke more while at your computer desk in order to control your enlightening temper? First of all I know my skiing ability better than you do. Second, even if I skied greens/blues, it would not have any affect on the discussion smoking on the mountain.

I think it is entertaining that you truly believe you have the same amount of control and safety while skiing high... While I don't even think smoking pot should a crime in general, I fully support you getting busted for skiing high. 

I don't care what you say, it is ILLEGAL. Even if it shouldn't be, it is.

I don't really believe your argument here. I really doubt that the real issue here is tax dollars. Just admit it, you want to smoke green and are too immature to face the consequences of your actions. 

As to your comments about how much fun I have on the mountain, apparently I have enough fun that I don't need to smoke in order to have a good time. If skiing isn't fun enough without the smoking, why not just stay home and smoke? That way, no issue.

Have a nice day,
David


----------



## Snowhere

Hey, lighten up on David. He is from the springs and we all know that being a right wing wacko comes with living where Focus on someone else’s Family is located. The springs is all about telling the rest of the world how to behave, you know, do as I say, not as I do, ala Ted Haggard method. :mrgreen:


----------



## cuzin

Hey David - remember when it was illegal for black people to go to white restaurants and schools? Remember when it was illegal for women to vote? Do you make the same argument there? Just go along with the laws, David. I engage in my duty of civic disobedience daily. It's people like you that allow irrational, oppressive laws that create more harm than the conduct they punish to remain in effect, and allows the government to impinge on our freedoms based solely on a "moral" justification. It is clear that you share those morals, but that does not justify making my conduct illegal. Blind faith in your government and their laws is a dangerous thing, David. It leads to oppressive regimes and unfettered power. Was the war in Iraq a good idea, David? Your president told you it was. You are a sheep, David, a mindless sheep.


----------



## cuzin

And Focus on you OWN DAMN FAMILY. They're probably smoking meth with a gay prostitute right now.


----------



## FLOWTORCH

David Spiegel said:


> Personally, I have no problem with people smoking pot if that is their deal. I do think, however, it is retarded to ski while high. You put yourself and others at risk because you are not in complete control of your reflexes.
> 
> All that aside, can you really complain about being busted for doing something illegal? Grow up. Quit your bitching. Smoke on your own private property.




True though, he is from the Springs.


----------



## David Spiegel

Actually I am from Seattle. 

I'm sure that Cuzin shreds the gnar front range all the time.

I am not conservative, I am in the Springs because I go to Colorado College. I am actually extremely liberal. 

The segregation analogy hardly holds up. We are talking about people smoking pot. Anyway, I actually said I think it should be legalized in general situations. I just don't think you should be allowed to ski in that state of mind. 

I doubt smoking pot really counts as civil disobedience. That would mean that it is getting something done, doing something productive for the betterment of society despite the laws. I have an inkling that you smoke pot while skiing/sitting around for your own personal enjoyment/comfort. 

All the same, thank you all for the revealing comments.

David


----------



## Phillips

Hey David,

Your probrably right about the pot smokin thing, but it sure is fun. The only thing I notice is that I bonk earlier and am more tired later that evening. I agree that the segregation analogy is a little out there and I agree that you don't need to smoke weed on the hill to have a good time. On the other hand I think it will be a sad day when people are being actively busted for being high on the hill. Now if they are skiing out of control and cause and accident and are then busted thats one thing.
I actually think more accidents are due on slope hazards and people skiing too fast. You have to admit that the increasing number of people on the hill is probrably going to put most people at risk. The occasional stoned local is more likely to be shreddin the trees, OB or in the BC.

enjoy this fine colorada winter
Kent



David Spiegel said:


> Actually I am from Seattle.
> 
> I'm sure that Cuzin shreds the gnar front range all the time.
> 
> I am not conservative, I am in the Springs because I go to Colorado College. I am actually extremely liberal.
> 
> The segregation analogy hardly holds up. We are talking about people smoking pot. Anyway, I actually said I think it should be legalized in general situations. I just don't think you should be allowed to ski in that state of mind.
> 
> I doubt smoking pot really counts as civil disobedience. That would mean that it is getting something done, doing something productive for the betterment of society despite the laws. I have an inkling that you smoke pot while skiing/sitting around for your own personal enjoyment/comfort.
> 
> All the same, thank you all for the revealing comments.
> 
> David


----------



## farp

Thank you David. 

Not all "outdoorsy" people have to protest the government's oppression by smoking pot. Some of us simply like being outside. 

What cracked me up was the kid who blamed President Bush for it. The clown actually related it to the war in Iraq. 

I guess we're supposed to believe that during the Clinton years smoking pot was legal, chicks out numbered dudes, and anybody who could rip up a black run was given a free season pass. 

Oh, those were the good ole' days.


----------



## cuzin

farp said:


> What cracked me up was the kid who blamed President Bush for it. The clown actually related it to the war in Iraq.


The relation was to the danger of blind acceptance of authority. "It's wrong because someone told me it's wrong." There's a difference between doing something illegal that actually has a negative social impact, and the perception that something is "bad" merely because it is illegal. The argument that one should refrain from illegal activities because there is a law against them, and nothing more, doesn't carry any water, in my book. Yes, David, people should complain about being prosecuted for violating laws that have resulted in systematic incarceration for an activity that, in many industrialized societies, and some parts of our own country, is socially acceptable and recognized as a relatively harmless activity. 

Are our drug laws as bad as segregation? No. But recent reports say that 1% of Americans are in prison (the highest in the world), and that drug related offenses constitute the largest single conviction category, accounting for approximately 60% of the federal and 20% of state prison populations. And African Americans account for 50% of the prison population but only 13% of the general population, so maybe the analogy to segregation isn't that far off. There is a "war on drugs" that has consequences that are far reaching, and the recent sweeps at ski areas are just one symptom. I made the initial post with the comment that this is a waste of taxpayer dollars, and that waste goes far beyond a single search on a single mountain. Will the people arrested see the inside of a prison? I hope not, but if they have prior offenses, under federal sentencing guidelines (and they'll end up in Federal court since they were likely on National Forest Service land), it's not out of the question. 

The point, David, is that just because someone tells you something is wrong, doesn't necessarily mean that it is. Use your judgment, whether skiing or voting, and look at the larger picture.


----------



## Snowhere

Unfortunately, those picked up will probably see jail time. Remember it is on Federal land so federal statues apply. If they got caught in town, state law would apply and it would only be a misdemeanor for less then 1 oz. On federal, I am not exactly sure, but it might be considered a felony. Either way, not a good use of our taxpayer dollars, other then money spent here can not be spent in Iraq.


----------



## Jahve

Retarded?? Sweet.. That high dollar upper ed at CC is sure workin for ya... A few years teaching public school made me aware of the kids who were so low in the social structure that they could only make fun of "retarded" kids.. Weak bro.. Pisses me off.. 

So here is one back at you from a big *******.. IMO unless you are totally retarded or just plain stupid (and have a rich daddy) nobody would waste 4 years in Colorado Springs at CC (well unless you are there on a full ride for hockey).. The springs is rubbin off on ya man.. You may not be a conservative but then again haggard is not gay.. Hey I got a idea maybe you can go to one of the week long camps he went to and get the conservative slapped out of ya. :-D 

Funny to think that they are bustin pot smokers on the hill while.... 

Some group of spring breakers will be 5 deep on the old jack and coke. 

Supplied by the ski area and then will return to the slopes for some more fun in the sun! Totally acceptable.. A scene that will repeat itself 100's if not 1000's of times in the next 3 weeks.. Then after that front ranger resorts will have.. Oh my god kegs in the parkin lot and boozers everywhere.. But this is not the problem.. Oh no! These people paid for the drinks and probably have a hotel room and are going to buy meals so we better leave them to their drunken blunders! 

I dont ski at the areas too much but for you that do go to the shacks.. Bring a bottle of wiskey and do some shots with the man!


----------



## Canada

Cuzin, when you rant the way you did in your earlier post, it weakens your arguement.

During the early 90's in CB and Telluride, ther was a problem with major homes being set up by what were essentially squatters. I had friends who were breaking into abandoned mines and setting up a make shift home. This resulted in a number of sanitation problems, and the forest service cracked down. If you are building a hut right off a main trail, or it is a super structure, then that may be the real ultimate issue. By knocking down a few the message is sent to keep them deep in the trees and not flaunt it in the face of the public. The guys at the local forest service probably don't really care as long as it isn't causing them a black eye. 

David,

Consider your audience. I've always found it humerous when my freinds
"boaters and skiers" say they are better when they are high. My thoughts are that if they are having fun and I'm having fun with them then cool. If some one was so baked, they were a danger, then thats a different story. Regardless, it is not an arguement you will ever be considered in a reasoned fasion on this forum.

I would be interested to hear from Locals at the Butte. I bet they would say they knocked down two shacks that were visible from the chairs.


----------



## straightfromAVL

Cuzin- It’s insulting to everybody on this forum when you liken yourself to a freedom fighter for smoking pot. I’m not buying it, and I sure hope nobody else is. Now I have nothing against getting high—even on the slopes—but if you really want credit for being a free thinker I suggest you pick a different cause…


----------



## BillyD

"Funny to think that they are bustin pot smokers on the hill while.... 
Some group of spring breakers will be 5 deep on the old jack and coke."

I wrote an article about this a while back. Drunks are promoted by ski areas and therefore the forest service. ( as they allow for it). You can buy enough alcohol on the mountain to get shit housed as you want. And its mostly the tourists that drink, not the better than average every day skiier. David Spiegel you are LAME. The fact that Cuzin smokes pot doesn't make him cooler than anyone else, but I bet he's a hell of a lot more fun to ski, ride or boat with than David Spiegel. StraightfromAvl what planet are you from?? Insulting to everbody? Doubt it. Is the Buzz really this lame now? Got to run, going to play checkers with the rest of the school girls.


----------



## cuzin

On the original topic of wasted taxpayer dollars, here's some food for thought: 

The $2 Trillion Nightmare - New York Times

I wonder what else we could fund if busting hippy skiers wasn't such a high priority.


----------



## jeffsssmith

"I don't really believe your argument here. I really doubt that the real issue here is tax dollars. Just admit it, you want to smoke green and are too immature to face the consequences of your actions. "

It actually is about the tax dollars. Here in the Butte we are told of budget woes by the Forest Service that inhibit their ability to do summer single track trail maintenance and enforce off trail closures that ATV and dirt bike users violate which causes trail/resource damage. The Forest Service then informs us that they can't afford to patrol the forest to catch people doing the resource damage or can they afford to repair the damage. Using the funds to look for shacks on a ski hill which is already built on by the ski area and has clear cut swaths for ski runs is a waste of funds that could be used for trail maintenance.


----------



## Phillips

jeffsssmith said:


> "I don't really believe your argument here. I really doubt that the real issue here is tax dollars. Just admit it, you want to smoke green and are too immature to face the consequences of your actions. "
> 
> It actually is about the tax dollars. Here in the Butte we are told of budget woes by the Forest Service that inhibit their ability to do summer single track trail maintenance and enforce off trail closures that ATV and dirt bike users violate which causes trail/resource damage. The Forest Service then informs us that they can't afford to patrol the forest to catch people doing the resource damage or can they afford to repair the damage. Using the funds to look for shacks on a ski hill which is already built on by the ski area and has clear cut swaths for ski runs is a waste of funds that could be used for trail maintenance.


I agree that it is a total waste of tax dollars. Shacks are cool and give an area character. I really don't see how they are dangerous unless of course they collapse on someone, but that's the chance you take isn't it. If someone gets busted smokin weed by patrol that is one thing, but the Feds just seems a little much. Whatever happened to the bong-gola?


----------



## farp

I think the topic is the all-to-common statement: "I ________ better when I'm high."

You can fill in the blank with the word ski, kayak, raft, tele, board, etc. 

My question is: Other than the pothead who speaks this silly phrase, does anybody believe it? Does anybody (in there right mind) believe that a person is better at anything after smoking the kinder?


----------



## sj

Farp buddy got 20 that says I'm way better with a bag of chips after some of the kine:twisted: .


----------



## tress33

Farp, I eat better when I'm high.


----------



## raftus

*Is smoking pot mostly harmless?*

Food for thought:

Smoking pot seems to do little harm to the individual if done in small amounts. Some studies have said that smoking a joint it is something like the equivalent of smoking three cigarettes. Also the lack of a filter, and the higher concentration of tar in pot, makes it more damaging on an ounce per ounce basis compared to tobacco smoked in cigarettes. But since few people have a daily habit their cumulative effects of smoking a few times a month are probably quite small. This means that the downstream impacts on the health care system and ultimately on insurance rates should be small except for heavy pot smokers. The heavy users will probably have a similar societal cost to heavy smokers.

While some contend that smoking marijuana helps calm down their nerves, and for some it does, for most it also causes slower reaction times which may have an adverse effect on paddling, skiing and driving. There are numerous studies that support this assertion. However, just like alcohol, the amount used is important in the equation. Most people would probably say that one beer at lunch isn't a big deal for skiing, but 5 is clearly an impairment and endangerment issue. The same goes for pot, smoke a lot and you are going to have some level of impaired reaction times and a decrease in balance. 

A final issue to consider is this: Supply Chain. If you grow your own pot you know how it came to be and are it is mostly free of moral issues (the method in which you get the seeds would be the remaining question). However if you buy from someone else you have to ask yourself what the social and societal costs of that pot reaching you are. I have two friends in college that ran a grow shop out of their house in Boulder. Rival drug dealers showed up at their house and shot them. Check the Daily Camera archives for the summer of 97 or 98. They both lived, one recovered fully, the other was shot in the knee and will always have some issues with his knee. Locally grown and locally shot - before then I never though that pot dealers would be so violent. There was a bullet hole on the wall next to one of my friends heads, i don't know if the shooter accidentally missed or if it was an intentional miss.

They had a modest operation, and this was in what is normally a very safe and low crime city - Boulder, CO. People are killed over pot growing, dealing and distribution in the US.

Pot growing in other places, like central and south America, is also controlled by drug dealers that kill people to protect their operations. Some dealers may be good moral people that want to do nothing illegal but grown and sell pot. Other drug dealers are bad people that also traffic other drugs and commit other serious crimes in connection with their marijuana business. 

But what happens when the bad dealers/growers press the good dealers with threats of harm and killings? How does the moral drug grower stay in business? They can't go to the cops to report that a rival drug dealer killed some of their workers. So they have limited options: somehow stay unknown forever, get forced out of business, bribe local officials, respond with force and violence, or pay off their rivals putting more money in the bad dealers pockets. 

Knowing that people may have died for the pot you are smoking would be a real buzz kill.


----------



## grommet

Good point on the supply chain issue. Most people never think about it, but the externalities of the drug business, even for the kind, are pretty eye-opening. I've done my fair share of illegal substances in my younger days and the main reason that I don't do them anymore is that I was bothered by the injustice, violence and suffering caused by the illegal drug trade (that I and ski worse when I'm high). In addition to what Raftus said, most of you are probably unaware that a significant amount of the grass bought and smoked in the States and Canada is grown on public lands, usually Forest Service, in Oregon and California, and that these growers, primarily Mexican cartel members, have been responsible for several murders and assaults on hikers, boaters, riders and rangers, have started not a few significant forest fires, poisoned streams with toxic chemicals and garbage and made a general mess of the pristine areas that they operate in. Put that in you pipe and smoke it!


----------



## farp

sj said:


> Farp buddy got 20 that says I'm way better with a bag of chips after some of the kine:twisted: .


I concede that there are somethings a person can do better while high. 

But it reminds me of a friend who worked at Poudre Valley Hospital a few years ago. 

Question: What do 99% of all snakebite victims have in common? 
Answer: They are drunk. 

I can hear somebody say, "I'm better at catching snakes when I'm drinking."


----------



## cuzin

Raftus, you make good points, but the reason that these externalities exist is because the criminalization of weed has created an unregulated black market. You don't see the same sort of violence in tobacco fields and whiskey distilleries. Making pot illegal relegates the control of the market to the hands of the "criminal element," who by definition, are not too concerned with following the law. It also provides drug cartels with a source of income that would not otherwise exist if there were a legal market that corporate America could 'cultivate.' Not to mention the billions of dollars in drug enforcement and military support that we provide to Latin American governments that could be avoided with a smarter drug policy.


----------



## BastrdSonOfElvis

Exactly. You can't blame a substance for the consequences of its prohibition. They banned alcohol and we got Al Capone and the Kennedy family. Legalize it and the problems go away.

To quote Jack Black of Tenacious D from the song "Two Kings":
"The tyranny and the bullshit's gone on too long...you fucking shrimps who blocked its legalization for so long -- you're banished from the land!"

For the record I am 10X better at Tekken, Ghost Recon and Guitar Hero whilst lambasted and I challenge anyone to a game.


----------



## jasonpgoodman

*


----------



## jasonpgoodman

*


----------



## cuzin

Jason, your logic doesn't work. First, not to get into the whole gun control debate, but most weapons are regulated, not criminalized. I'm pretty sure that even automatic weapons are legal to own, provided that you have a special permit and background check. Otherwise, whatever I was doing with that Thompson the other day was probably not ok. 

Second, the effects of drug criminalization is not necessarily transferable to all laws and criminal activity. Is there a huge demand for automatic weapons that I'm not aware of? Probably some, but not nearly as widespread and ubiquitous as the demand for marijuana and other criminalized substances. This incredible demand creates the potential for incredible profits, and thus the incentive to dominate the market and forcefully eject other participants. I just don't think that this applies to the black market for automatic weapons. 

Third, I think you are fundamentally confused in your analogy - why would there be violence at Winchester if they don't make automatic weapons? I understood the point Raftus was making to be that your average stoner growing weed on the side is entering a market that is more dangerous than he may perceive. Indeed, this may refute your argument, as the guys who shot Raftus's friends are precisely the element of society that has a demand for automatic weapons to maintain control of the market, and who are purchasing the weapons due to the profits they are making from the sale of illegal substances, that would not otherwise exist if they were merely regulated. Take away the law, take away the problem. 

And, yes, I wouldn't mind picking up a quarter sack at Wal-Mart, although I always prefer buying fresh and local produce to support my local farmer. Dank you very much. 

Rosa? No. But she was one bad ass lady.


----------



## Snowhere

What all you are overlooking is the whole control problem. The government has absolutely no control over illegal substance and it is absolutely stupid and short sighted. Every year it is proven that it is easier for kids to get a bag of weed then it is for them to get Alcohol. The simple fact that alcohol is legal and regulated, with enforceable penalties for selling it to underage persons, keeps it with in a reasonable sphere of control. Black market items, are forever out of mainstream control and the government has absolutely little control over who possess it. I would make the argument that if weed was a regulated substance with a minimum smoking age, it could and would be as respected as the minimum drinking age is. It is also proven that smoking weed is more damaging to the developing mind, I.E. kids and teens, then it is to a normally developed adult brain. The effects of weed to the developing mind will stunt the development of the brain, much as alcohol will do the same. We would be much better off socially if we treated both substances the same and could actually keep both out of the hands of youngsters. Remember, it is easier for kids to get a bag of weed then it is for them to get a 12 pack of buttwiper.

The side argument is anything (within reason) is O.K. in moderation. A beer or two is O.K., drowning a 12 pack a day is not. If you are a Dependant type of person, you are going to abuse any thing you might do. Hence the alcoholic will abuse weed, just like they drink to excess. The average person will partake in moderation and will show the same constraint to driving, operating machinery and what not, with out drinking and not toking. 
Wake up America, it is long time to start holding the public responsible for their own actions and stop trying to legistrate prohibition. A public that is held to a eoropean standard that you did what ever you did, and no one else holds responsibility for YOUR actions, is a less sue happy public. If everyone that burned their lap for spilling their coffee onto themselves was kicked out of court, then prices for a lot of stuff would go down. 

I work as a professional and my client expect me to be sober and straight when I represent them or do work for them. What I do on my own time is known of their business or the governments bisiness. I do not go out and put the public at risk, and as such I can care less what some stuffed shirt in Washington or the Dobson types cares to try and tell me to do.


----------



## Randaddy

WOAH! Am I glad I stumbled upon this one! George Bush, reefer, guns, segregation, this is one hot topic! 

Thanks for all of your comments, they have made my lazy Saturday worth every bowl I just smoked!

Oh, by the way, I _LOVE_ to snowboard high, but that's just because it remarkably improves my dexterity, balance, and memory. I also like to smoke a fat bowl and play the guitar, hold a baby, or do some important paperwork. Everyone needs to relax; weed is illegal, but Wild Turkey is legal. If you ask me, they should both be legal and available in vending machines. The world is a fucked up place. 

P.S. They will never find my smoke shack! It's in an alternate dimension guarded by flying monkeys and wild turkeys.


----------



## northfwestg

*montucky say so*

yea dave is an assmunchen sheep, but fuk the shacks, use the trees brothers and sisters, them trees make a fine blind from the federales,


----------

