To be fair, here in California, where the proposition is up for a vote, it's as easy to get a Rx card as it is to get a buss pass. You got to a doctor that prescribes pot, you pay the 60 dollars or whatever they charge and you walk out with a card. I know here in San Diego, there are like 100 or more dispensaries, so any adult can rationally not deal with dealers. However, the prices do not actually reflect the competition. I'm surprised it hasn't drove the prices down yet. Most dispensaries charge average street prices for their stuff. This should actually change if it become a free market. Open competition will drive the prices to a reasonable point.
On the "driving while stoned" thing, I'm against it, obviously. However, there is a whole host of items you can legally purchase at your local drug store or grocery store that would impair your driving abilities. Beyond the obvious (booze), you can buy sleep aids, nyquil, allergy meds, etc. All these things impair your ability to drive safely. You can't base policy on what the worst will do. If that were the case, might as well make everything illegal.
I don't drive stoned because I get paranoid when I'm high. However, I can tell you as a long time pot smoker, weed is literally the least of your worries. Someone driving angry is probably more likely to hurt you than a stoned driver. I'm not advocating driving high, I'm just saying, on average, the way weed impairs you will probably make you a more careful, slow driver. However, no one should ever drive while impaired in any way.
And another one bites the dust. Seriously, people, read bold red text. It contains important information, like how not to get suspended.
I'm going to preface everything I'm about to say with this - I didn't read the bulk of arguments in this thread, so if I'm repeating anything, that's the reason.
I am voting yes on proposition 19. I am voting a very enthusiastic yes on 19. I believe it may be one of the most important votes in the last 100 years. The simple truth, beyond all the rhetoric and arguments, is that for society, marijuana prohibition is much more detrimental than legalization. It is a failed policy and I'd like to discuss some of the myths and truths.
First off, I did skim this thread and saw someone make the blatantly misguided comments that decriminalization is the proper way to handle marijuana. This is horribly untrue. Decriminalization does nothing. It's actually a very conflicting policy. It says that the substance is not criminalized, but everything associated with it is. Sure, you may not go to jail for possession of small amounts, but acquiring that small amount is, as well as selling small amounts. It still puts all the power in the hands of the black market, but limits the power of police and law enforcement. It does nothing to solve the issues associated with prohibition. It's like breaking your leg, and instead of seeing a doctor and getting it fixed, you simply decide "I'm not going to walk on it."
Secondly, the danger associated with marijuana are almost all exclusively the result of prohibition. First off, the amount of money spent on marijuana prohibition is roughly 4X the amount of money spent on all other illicit drugs COMBINED. I would say at least 50% of the country disagrees with marijuana prohibition, definitely a much higher number than you would find that support total legalization of any other drug. So, in spite of the public's nearly "meh" attitude toward pot, we spend 4X as much stopping it. That's billions spent on a war that has produced NO results. There are more people smoking pot today than at any point in our history.
What do you think is easier for kids to get a hold of, in general, booze or weed? It's weed. You know why? There are no controls in place that are effective. I know as a kid I could ALWAYS get weed, but booze was much harder to acquire. I didn't even drink until I was 21, but I smoked at 14. Is this always the case? Of course not, but in general, it is the case. Dealers don't card, they just want money. This is another one of those issues that decriminalization does not prevent.
Prohibition has been proved time and again to not produce results. You can't legislate morality in that way. In fat, prohibition has an adverse effect, making all drug inherently MORE dangerous. With prohibition, you create the extremely violent black market, which in turn produces dead bodies, regardless of the drugs danger. Marijuana has never killed anyone, but the prohibition of marijuana has. The same could be said for drugs that will kill you like heroin. Yes, the drug can kill, but with prohibition, you couple those figures with the amount of deaths caused in the violent war over the black market. The more time you spend studying the effects of prohibition, the more you come to realize how truly misguided it is.
I will leave with those for now, and return later to further discuss the issue. Again, I apologize if this simply repeats sentiment already discussed. I am at work, and did not have the time to read the whole thread before responding. To me, prohibition and the advancement of knowledge on the subject is one of my major focal points, and enjoy the debate surrounding it.
Gee... let's stop the insults, OK? This is just another Internet discussion after all.
I have common sense. I feel much like you in that smoking weed is (normally) harmless, a "victimless" crime and that law should be changed. What I'm trying to understand is why do you don't support law enforcement, and how would you feel if a cop ignores a law you think he/she must apply.
Is law enforcement good? Yes. Are all the laws good? No. Is that simple. We have to change the laws, but let's keep law enforcement for ALL them to be followed.
And if you think the system is wrong, do something. Vote for an appropriate candidate. Postule yourself for president. Go make a revolution. Let's just not be only complains on the Internet.
Most logical post that I read in this debate. I'm a pot smoker. One who (luckily) lives in California, a state that is ACTUALLY doing something about it by voting on ending the failed policies of marijuana prohibition. With almost no actual political backing and very little money (in the grand scheme of things) and one measly TV spot, we are on the verge of changing the law to a more sensible one. However, that doesn't change that a cop is bound to uphold the law. I've been popped in possession of weed and I took my licks. It was simply throwing the weed away, but if I had been cited or received jail time, that would be the risk I took by breaking the law and getting caught.
The cop made a value judgment that the 2.3 grams of weed I had on me was not worth the bust. He made me throw it away, and even let me keep my pipe. However, that's here in California. If I was busted in say Arizona, I'd expect much harsher treatment. Know the laws, know your limits and be sensible. Not all cops are gonna be lenient. Hope for the best, but expect the worst. Also, work to change laws and educate people instead of screaming craziness online.
The caveat to all this is that marijuana prohibition is a federal law, so the feds can still stop the will of the California people. However, local cops are only bound to uphold local laws. Only the DEA has the authority to uphold federal drug laws. If a cop in this state busts you without the backing of the DEA (assuming prop 19 passes) then that cop is doing something illegal. It is not the place of local police to uphold federal laws, and that's something we will be facing after Nov 2nd. The debate isn't always cut and dry, but at the end of the day, if you break the law, no matter how misguided that law is, a cop does have the authority (and ultimately the requirement) to bust you.
I'm a person who hates every movie, commonly known as a movie snob. I watch nothing but "artistic" movies and foriegn films, but Inception was by far my favorite movie of the year. I didn't even care about any shortcomings that may have been present, I was just along for the rde and enjoyed every minute of it. I haven't been that captivated by a film since Let the Right One In...
I don't think it matters if it was a dream or not at the end, I think the point is that Cobb forgave himself for what happened to Mal. I think Nolan purposely left it open for interpretation because the point wasn't whether it was a dream or not, the point was his own personal salvation.
You might not want to hear this, but Sudden Shock just isn't as good as both Stone Rain and the Champion. It is also the only red burn spell besides Arc Lightning, that doesn't deal more damage than it costs.
Anyway, I can sleep a lot better now that you have found a way to keep Keldon Champion in your cube. Mana denial is great for aggro, but since you are also adding more artifact hate, you should be on the safe site.
Its funny, when I was going through my red cards to cut, Sudden Shock was one of the cards I looked at. I don't know why I settled on Stone Rain over the shock, but now you have me questioning my choice...
If you don't mind my asking, what was the reasoning? It may help me to make my decision.
Was it simply keeping 3CC with 3CC, and that blowing up a mox/signet is just like LD, but also on a stick? That seems reasonable to me. Any other reasons?
I felt, looking at my card pool, especially in red, that LD was very well represented, and of my choices, the rain felt like the easiest to give its walking papers. I was on the fence thinking about Ravenous Baboons, but then I decided that more specific LD on a stick was better than the rain. Also, given the quality and power of most cube artifacts, the red sex monkey would see a broader number of decks than stone rain...
Outside of Magic, I'm a big gaming geek. I enjoy compettion of any kind. Magic is basically the only CCG I play, but back in the day I also played Shadowfist. I tried a few others, but never got into any of them like Magic and 'fist.
As far as console gaming, I own a SNES, PS2, PS3 and Wii. I'm mostly into fighting games and RPGs. I actually got way into the fighting game scene for a while, mostly giving up Magic to focus on it. Eventually I came back to Magic as I always do, and that's basically because of the Cube format.
Oh, and of course I play the greatest group card game ever, The Great Dalmuti.
I love this thread. When I first started building my cube, I did something similar. I printed data from several cubes I felt best represented my bend in building a cube, plus some of the power rankings and started breaking them down by similarities. Having this done on a large number of cubes will provide amazing data for those of us who love the cube format. It also provides an amazing jump-off point for new cube enthusiasts.
The price, like most P3K cards, is outrageous. However, I run proxies in my cube, so it's not a problem. I wouldn't be willing to run it if it meant buying a mediocre card for that much money. The only card I really want from P3K for my cube is Rolling Earthquake and I'd almost be willing to pay for it. Almost.
On the "driving while stoned" thing, I'm against it, obviously. However, there is a whole host of items you can legally purchase at your local drug store or grocery store that would impair your driving abilities. Beyond the obvious (booze), you can buy sleep aids, nyquil, allergy meds, etc. All these things impair your ability to drive safely. You can't base policy on what the worst will do. If that were the case, might as well make everything illegal.
I don't drive stoned because I get paranoid when I'm high. However, I can tell you as a long time pot smoker, weed is literally the least of your worries. Someone driving angry is probably more likely to hurt you than a stoned driver. I'm not advocating driving high, I'm just saying, on average, the way weed impairs you will probably make you a more careful, slow driver. However, no one should ever drive while impaired in any way.
And another one bites the dust. Seriously, people, read bold red text. It contains important information, like how not to get suspended.
I am voting yes on proposition 19. I am voting a very enthusiastic yes on 19. I believe it may be one of the most important votes in the last 100 years. The simple truth, beyond all the rhetoric and arguments, is that for society, marijuana prohibition is much more detrimental than legalization. It is a failed policy and I'd like to discuss some of the myths and truths.
First off, I did skim this thread and saw someone make the blatantly misguided comments that decriminalization is the proper way to handle marijuana. This is horribly untrue. Decriminalization does nothing. It's actually a very conflicting policy. It says that the substance is not criminalized, but everything associated with it is. Sure, you may not go to jail for possession of small amounts, but acquiring that small amount is, as well as selling small amounts. It still puts all the power in the hands of the black market, but limits the power of police and law enforcement. It does nothing to solve the issues associated with prohibition. It's like breaking your leg, and instead of seeing a doctor and getting it fixed, you simply decide "I'm not going to walk on it."
Secondly, the danger associated with marijuana are almost all exclusively the result of prohibition. First off, the amount of money spent on marijuana prohibition is roughly 4X the amount of money spent on all other illicit drugs COMBINED. I would say at least 50% of the country disagrees with marijuana prohibition, definitely a much higher number than you would find that support total legalization of any other drug. So, in spite of the public's nearly "meh" attitude toward pot, we spend 4X as much stopping it. That's billions spent on a war that has produced NO results. There are more people smoking pot today than at any point in our history.
What do you think is easier for kids to get a hold of, in general, booze or weed? It's weed. You know why? There are no controls in place that are effective. I know as a kid I could ALWAYS get weed, but booze was much harder to acquire. I didn't even drink until I was 21, but I smoked at 14. Is this always the case? Of course not, but in general, it is the case. Dealers don't card, they just want money. This is another one of those issues that decriminalization does not prevent.
Prohibition has been proved time and again to not produce results. You can't legislate morality in that way. In fat, prohibition has an adverse effect, making all drug inherently MORE dangerous. With prohibition, you create the extremely violent black market, which in turn produces dead bodies, regardless of the drugs danger. Marijuana has never killed anyone, but the prohibition of marijuana has. The same could be said for drugs that will kill you like heroin. Yes, the drug can kill, but with prohibition, you couple those figures with the amount of deaths caused in the violent war over the black market. The more time you spend studying the effects of prohibition, the more you come to realize how truly misguided it is.
I will leave with those for now, and return later to further discuss the issue. Again, I apologize if this simply repeats sentiment already discussed. I am at work, and did not have the time to read the whole thread before responding. To me, prohibition and the advancement of knowledge on the subject is one of my major focal points, and enjoy the debate surrounding it.
Most logical post that I read in this debate. I'm a pot smoker. One who (luckily) lives in California, a state that is ACTUALLY doing something about it by voting on ending the failed policies of marijuana prohibition. With almost no actual political backing and very little money (in the grand scheme of things) and one measly TV spot, we are on the verge of changing the law to a more sensible one. However, that doesn't change that a cop is bound to uphold the law. I've been popped in possession of weed and I took my licks. It was simply throwing the weed away, but if I had been cited or received jail time, that would be the risk I took by breaking the law and getting caught.
The cop made a value judgment that the 2.3 grams of weed I had on me was not worth the bust. He made me throw it away, and even let me keep my pipe. However, that's here in California. If I was busted in say Arizona, I'd expect much harsher treatment. Know the laws, know your limits and be sensible. Not all cops are gonna be lenient. Hope for the best, but expect the worst. Also, work to change laws and educate people instead of screaming craziness online.
The caveat to all this is that marijuana prohibition is a federal law, so the feds can still stop the will of the California people. However, local cops are only bound to uphold local laws. Only the DEA has the authority to uphold federal drug laws. If a cop in this state busts you without the backing of the DEA (assuming prop 19 passes) then that cop is doing something illegal. It is not the place of local police to uphold federal laws, and that's something we will be facing after Nov 2nd. The debate isn't always cut and dry, but at the end of the day, if you break the law, no matter how misguided that law is, a cop does have the authority (and ultimately the requirement) to bust you.
Its funny, when I was going through my red cards to cut, Sudden Shock was one of the cards I looked at. I don't know why I settled on Stone Rain over the shock, but now you have me questioning my choice...
I felt, looking at my card pool, especially in red, that LD was very well represented, and of my choices, the rain felt like the easiest to give its walking papers. I was on the fence thinking about Ravenous Baboons, but then I decided that more specific LD on a stick was better than the rain. Also, given the quality and power of most cube artifacts, the red sex monkey would see a broader number of decks than stone rain...
My vote would be for Stone Rain, but that may also be because I just cut the rain for Manic Vandal...
As far as console gaming, I own a SNES, PS2, PS3 and Wii. I'm mostly into fighting games and RPGs. I actually got way into the fighting game scene for a while, mostly giving up Magic to focus on it. Eventually I came back to Magic as I always do, and that's basically because of the Cube format.
Oh, and of course I play the greatest group card game ever, The Great Dalmuti.
WW
Vigilance
T: Tap target creature.
2/2
Thoughts?