The Ad Facebook Condé Nast Doesn't Want You to See

More free publicity for Just Say Now, the marijuana legalization campaign: Condé Nast has ordered the editors of Reddit to reject the group's ads supporting California's Proposition 19 because it "does not want to financially benefit from this issue." The editors, who think "it's ridiculous that we're turning away advertising money," responded by running the ads for free.

Unlike Facebook, which objected specifically to the pot leaf in the Just Say Now ads it rejected (on grounds that they violated a general "no smoking" policy), Condé Nast says the subject of the ads is the problem. In fact, its position suggests that it would also turn down ads from opponents of Prop. 19.

Firedoglake has more.

Comments

[John]

Don't you guys know that friending a facebook page with a marijuana leaf is a gateway drug for teenagers?

[SugarFree]

What will they friend next? Cocaine? Heroin?

Won't someone think of the children's Facebook accounts?!?

[Warty]

Are you a failure as a parent? Are you vaguely afraid of the facebooks, but have no idea if they're part of the internets, or how to behave like an actual parent? Now there's good news: you can give us your money.

[SugarFree]

Facebook: How Does It Work?

By the way, I have started a campaign of terror against everyone I know who has their mom as a Facebook friend. I have released the full horror that I am capable of upon them.

[Extended Warren T]

I just e-snorted an e-line of e-coke off the e-ass of an e-hooker dressed as Princess Jasmine.

That's what I think of the children.

[Brett L]

I would think alcohol has produced more teenagers approximately 14 years after use than pot.

[Fluffy]

Hey John,

I thought it would amuse you [based on our discussions of religion and such] to know that I have broken into the top 10 in the Atheism section of the Amazon Kindle store, and am chasing down those bitches Hitchens and Dawkins.

So now when you're telling people what dicks atheists are, you can point at me. "Dawkins is an enemy of freedom, and that Fluffy guy is a BIGOT AND MONSTER!!!!!"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bests.....c_3_5_last

[John]

http://www.philosophynow.org/issue80/80marks.htm

Just for you Fluffy. Here is an atheist who gets it right, if you are going to be an atheist. Atheism can only lead to amorality. Any other conclusion is just living in denial.

[sarcasmic]

The author gets it wrong in the beginning when he says that without God there can be no morals.

Why do morals have to have a source?
Why can't they, like natural law or the mater and energy that make our physical world, simply exist?

Looks to me like the guy claims to be an atheist but is actually engaging in rebellion against the church.

I didn't read much past the first section because arguments based upon premises with which I disagree cannot hold my interest.

[sarcasmic]

*matter*
duh-oh!

[John]

Morals come from your will. Morals are whatever you want them to be. To pretend otherwise is to live in denial. He is one of the few atheists I have ever read who actually understands and accepts the consequences of there being no God. The rest of them who sit around thinking that there is some kind of absolute right and wrong or that anyone or anything in the universe gives a flying fuck what they think it is, are just living in denial.

With God it is a cold, lonely, meaningless world. The only meaning to it is whatever your will decides to make.

[sarcasmic]

But if God does not exist, and people believing in something that does not exist managed to come up with a system of morality, it sounds to me like morality exists and God was invented to explain it.

[Warty]

Bullshit. You can construct a perfectly cromulent system of morals with nothing more than the Golden Rule. And all religions' morals basically boil down to follow the golden rule, unless (in some religions) the other person is outside the tribe.

By the way, I'm inclined to believe that our morals are innate in us. Not even the biggest (sound of mind) nihilist is going to go around murdering babies, for instance.

[sarcasmic]

"And all religions' morals basically boil down to follow the golden rule, unless (in some religions) the other person is outside the tribe."

Hence George Carlin's Two Commandments (paraphrased)

1) Always be faithful to the provider of thy nookie.

2) Try real hard not to kill anyone, unless they worship a different invisible man than you.

[Warty]

Jesus was fairly good about telling his people not to murder the infidels, but his followers had a tendency to forget about that in subsequent centuries.

[John]

"Bullshit. You can construct a perfectly cromulent system of morals with nothing more than the Golden Rule."

What is so magical about the Golden rule? At best it is a self defense mechanism; don't do this to you so you don't do this to me. But it seems to me the best thing to do is use your reason and figure out when it pays to be nice and when it pays to screw people.

Maybe you get pleasure from being a nice guy. Lots of people do. But some people don't. I can't see how, absent some higher authority, you can say one is "better" in any absolute sense than the other. If it makes you happy, who am I to say you are being immoral?

[Warty]

What is so magical about the Golden rule?

Every culture has it, for one thing. And even if they didn't, you can only have civil society by adopting some foundational moral principle and taking it for granted. The golden rule and its equivalent the NAP are good places to start, certainly at least as good as, "Don't murder, because YHWH says so."

And here's the evolutionary argument for the golden rule. Essentially, we are wired to not want to hurt the people in our tribe, because it benefits us. I know that behavioral evolution is often horseshit, but this particular argument seems convincing to me.

Oh, the link may be behind a paywall. I'm not sure if I can only get the fulltext because I'm on campus right now.

[sarcasmic]

I know that behavioral evolution is often horseshit, but this particular argument seems convincing to me.

I agree. Morality to the human animal is flight to a bird. It is natural. And those who do not possess it end up dead, in prison, or in positions of power.

[Fluffy]

John, here are the problems with the Straussian argument for the moral necessity of belief in God:

1. First, the Judeo-Christian tradition is so messed up that believing in it, literally, doesn't help us. The immorality on display within the tradition is no worse than the immorality that atheism will supposedly lead us to. Maybe you could start from scratch and build some other brand new monotheistic tradition that wouldn't have all the baggage Judeo-Christianity does, but no one has done that yet.

2. Even where it isn't out-and-out evil, the Judeo-Christian tradition is incredibly opaque. Billions of lines of ink have been wasted on the exact meaning of "Thou Shalt Not Kill". What benefit is it, exactly, to have a monotheistic system scaring people into being moral, if no one can agree on a simple thing like the meaning of Thou Shalt Not Kill?

You might say, "Yeah, well, those two things are only problems for people who really dig into the material. The average person never thinks about that stuff, so the Judeo-Christian tradition works just fine for them at keeping them moral." Well, this is also true of humanism. The average person never digs deep enough into philosophy for the question of nihilism to arise. If we're going to judge religion based on its impact on some theoretical Average Person, we should judge humanism the same way.

[John]

We should judge humanism on the truth of its claims. And humanism, without God can't claim anything. You can believe whatever you like. Just stop pretending that your morals, whatever they are, are anything different or better than anyone else's morals.

You claim you are moral because that is what you "rationally have concluded is right". As Octopus points out below, there is no way to prove that. So it is a meaningless statement. You get through the night by pretending that there is such a thing as a larger truth and objective morals. Christians get through the night by believing in God. Both of you are equally acting on faith or will or whatever you want to call it.

[sarcasmic]

Humanism is self worship, it's culmination being a totalitarian government of men.

If there is a such thing as evil, that is is.

But that is not atheism.

[sarcasmic]

*is it*

[SugarFree]

John, your corrosive skepticism might have some weight behind it if you weren't using it to defend the giant unexamined assumption behind your beliefs.

[John]

My beliefs are based on faith. I will never claim otherwise. If it were provable rationally, it wouldn't be hard.

The point is that atheists need to stop pretending they are immune to faith or that the truth is self evident. It isn't.

[SugarFree]

You are the one claiming self-evident truth.

You don't have to have faith to not have faith. You simply don't have faith.

[sarcasmic]

My beliefs are based on faith. I will never claim otherwise.

Atheism is a lack of faith in an intelligent higher power.
It does not require that one not believe in anything at all, like the beauty of free markets and the moral cooperation that they encourage.

[Fluffy]

You get through the night by pretending that there is such a thing as a larger truth and objective morals.

John, it's a "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" kind of argument.

Either Rand was right and using non-controversial axioms and reason you can successfully construct a totalizing human morality, or -

You can't do that, in which case I can declare morality to be whatever I want [as you note] and I declare it to be X.

I actually don't really fear subjectivism. It would be something of a relief, actually. I find the need to apply logic to moral questions to be a pretty stiff burden.

All that "cold, lonely universe" stuff really doesn't impress me, either. Oh, poor dear, he's lonely. Pull yourself together, Francis.

[John]

It only seems like heads I win tails you lose because it is true. There is no rational way to determine morality. And there is no way to determine what set of morals is ideal for everyone or why any particular set of morals is better than another.

To do that you would have to know what the "Good" is beyond your own personal good. First, you don't even know what is your personal good is. How many times have we mistakenly done something we think is right only to later realize it was exactly the wrong thing? And even if you could, you will never know what the larger good is. What is good for my race or tribe or nation might be terrible for another. When you are talking about larger groups of people, the "good" is impossible to ascertain.

The greatest evils in history have been perpetrated in the name of the most noble causes. Indeed, the more noble the cause, the greater the evil. And I include Christianity in that. Christianity goes wrong when it starts to pretend that man can do anything beyond worship God and try to follow God's command in his personal life as best he can. When we try to create a "Christian society" we are no better than communism trying to create a socialist society. Man is a fallen creature. He can't do that. To put in Hayakian terms, he doesn't have the information to determine the greater good. He can sometimes get pieces of it. But generally the more good he tries to do the more evil he ends up doing.

That is why atheists can never claim that there is a morality. You don't have the knowledge or the ability as a human being to evaluate morality. At best you can make practical approximations about what makes you happy right now. That is is. Claim anymore and you are engaging in just as much of an act of faith as any Christian.

And again you miss the point about it being a cold universe. I don't care what you think about the universe. The point is that you need to stop pretending that there is any meaning or any absolutes beyond what is in front of you and what you decide there are.

[sarcasmic]

I understand now John.

You are laying claim to a monopoly on morality.

That's what religious wars are all about - my morality is stronger than your morality, and I'll break every moral code to prove it!

[John]

No. I am doing just the opposite. I am saying no one but God can lay any claim on a monopoly of morality. And if there is no God, then no one can. It is all relative. There is no way to say why one set of or morals or one action is any better or worse than another.

[sarcasmic]

I am saying no one but God can lay any claim on a monopoly of morality. And if there is no God, then no one can.

I disagree with your premise, which makes your implication meaningless to me.

[John]

"I disagree with your premise, which makes your implication meaningless to me."

The premise is no one can make any claim on a monopoly of morality. Take the God part out if you don't like it.

[sarcasmic]

The premise is no one can make any claim on a monopoly of morality.

Anyone who does, including someone claiming to be a representative of an invisible man, probably has something to gain and should be greeted with skepticism.

I know truth and lie. I don't need God or a preacher to tell me that.

Take the God part out if you don't like it.

Already did.

[The Heresiarch]

How does one know what God has to say about morality?

[capitol l]

I don't know about you, Fluffy, but John has convinced me. Though I will require his further expertise in helping me lead a religious and moral life.

Some questions:

1) Which deity is considered the best for someone wanting to lead a moral life to believe in?

2)Do I have to follow all of the rules and tenets, or can I skip some(there are so many, I could forget some)? If I can skip some, which ones, and why?

4)What if I find the tenets of my new-found religion morally abhorrent, is it easy to switch?

5)Can I still eat bacon?

[John]

You can do whatever you like Capitol. Just don't pretend that what you are doing is anything other than an act of will or faith. There is no absolute rationality that is going to tell you right from wrong or how to live or give you any unique claim on morality or the truth.

[&]

The rest of them who sit around thinking that there is some kind of absolute right and wrong or that anyone or anything in the universe gives a flying fuck what they think it is, are just living in denial.

So John, if there are no absolutes, why do you waste so much of your time here arguing with strangers? What's the point? You're just jerking off into a sock.

[Fluffy]

Or, if the absolutes are absolutes because they are communicated to us from a deity, how do we know what that deity wants?

He's not exactly much of a communicator, is he? He must have Asperger's or something.

"God says slaughter all who are not like you." How do we know that's not true?

"God says everyone fuck like rabbits all day long." How do we know that's not what He wants?

[Fluffy]

Penis is evil! The Penis shoots Seeds, and makes new Life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was. But the Gun shoots Death and purifies the Earth of the filth of Brutals. Go forth, and kill!

I heard somewhere that this is what God wants.

Now how do we know that's not true?

[John]

You are dodging the point Fluffy. This is not a question of theism. This is about atheism and the consequences of it.

[Fluffy]

John, it's about your claim that theism is superior to atheism because it provides us with a guide for morality.

For that to be true, it has to do so in a way that is demonstrably superior to atheism.

Theism does no better at providing moral guidance than atheism, if only because just declaring that a god or gods exist doesn't advance moral questions one inch.

And unless God is spooning you at night and singing old Captain and Teneille songs into your ear, it doesn't really help the "cold lonely universe" issue either. If God's up there, he's kind of like an absentee teenage dad about it, isn't he?

[John]

"John, it's about your claim that theism is superior to atheism because it provides us with a guide for morality."

No No No. I never theism was superior to Atheism. I think it is because I like morality. And I have faith that such a morality and justice exist. But that is just faith. I would never claim some form of rational superiority in my belief. It is literally my admittedly irrational faith.

From a strictly rational perspective, there is nothing superior or inferior about having or not having morals. It is as they say what it is. The point is that atheists can't make a claim on any higher truth. And thus, to be consistent they need to stop claiming that anyone's personal code or morality is any better or worse than anyone else's. No fluffy, in the big scheme of things the head hunter in Borneo or the slaver who lived in the 16th Century is no better or worse than you. You think their slaving and head hunting were wrong. By their standards they were doing good. You have no basis to tell them they were wrong. At best you have customs and traditions that work for you in the here and now. But nothing more.

[Fluffy]

You have no basis to tell them they were wrong.

Neither do you.

I never theism was superior to Atheism. I think it is because I like morality. And I have faith that such a morality and justice exist. But that is just faith.

But just switching to theism doesn't get you to that morality. You have to BOTH switch to theism AND think that you know what God wants AND think that you can explain it to others in a way that doesn't lead to blind alleys and endless debate about interpretation of scripture or cases or circumstances.

And if you're going to be that arbitrary, there's no reason for anyone else to not be that arbitrary.

I think that it's possible to deduce morality from fairly simple axioms that are reflexively self-justified. But even if that's not possible, I can just still say, "...Why? Because."

And there is no difference between that statement and "...Why? Because Jesus." Adding Jesus adds nothing to the statement.

You're basically saying you like theism because it allows you to arbitrarily assert a morality. But if you want to arbitrarily assert a morality, you can just do so. Adding in a deity doesn't add anything. If you're just going to "have faith", why not just "have faith" that your moral intimations are absolutes?

[John]

I think that it's possible to deduce morality from fairly simple axioms that are reflexively self-justified."

Of course no one in history has ever done that. But hey maybe you will be the first. We can always dream.

But even if that's not possible, I can just still say, "...Why? Because."

Exactly. And as an atheist that is what you have pretty much been doing for your entire life. You just dress it up in fancy clothes.

"You're basically saying you like theism because it allows you to arbitrarily assert a morality. But if you want to arbitrarily assert a morality, you can just do so. Adding in a deity doesn't add anything. If you're just going to "have faith", why not just "have faith" that your moral intimations are absolutes?"

On a rational level, that is very true. And you miss my point. The point is that you as an atheist and me as a theist are rationally on the same level. Neither one of us can rationally prove anything. I go beyond the rational. I am not claiming to be able to convince you of my view. I am just saying you need to stop deluding yourself into thinking you as an atheist are in any better shape than I am.

[John]

I believe in absolutes. But I cheat. I believe in God. If you don't, I don't see how you can.

[sarcasmic]

I believe in absolutes.

Me too. I believe in truth and lie, honest and dishonest, genuine and disingenuous, right and wrong, and it all begins there.

I don't need God to know that.

[John]

"I don't need God to know that."

No you don't. You just need a will. But your act of will is no better or worse than my act of faith. You believe that stuff is true why? Because you said so. That is really all it is. There isn't any big truth in the sky to point to. There is just you and you saying something. That is nice. But what you have to will or say is no better or worse than what anyone else has to say or will.

[sarcasmic]

But your act of will is no better or worse than my act of faith.

I agree, which is why I have not passed judgment on you.

I would appreciate it if you would do the same.

[John]

Where have I ever passed judgment on you?

[sarcasmic]

Where have I ever passed judgment on you?

OMG it's all over your posts.

Good day, I've wasted enough time here today.

[John]

"OMG it's all over your posts."

I guess this is how it feels to win an argument. I have never passed judgment on you or any atheist. All I am saying is that if you are an atheist, you need to recognize the consequences of that. Why do you assume that relativistic morality is a bad thing or that accusing you of it is passing judgment?

[Psychic Octopus]

Why do morals have to have a source? Why can't they, like natural law or the mater and energy that make our physical world, simply exist?

Because matter and energy have testable effects on the physical world. At least for the Atheists who reject religion for its lack of physical proof, they should reject any notion of morals/ethics on the same.

Same as natural law if it doesn't mean things like evolution or E=mc^2. Natural law in morality is also without physical proof.

This doesn't completely close the door to morals, of course. It just demolishes any claim to an absolute character of morals, but allows for contingent, changeable morals. I would go further, though. In historical reality, all morals have been contingent and constantly changing (slavery, genocide, and so on... are proof that morals DO change).

[John]

Exactly

[sarcasmic]

they should reject any notion of morals/ethics on the same

Then we reject human nature?
I thought that the reason why markets work is because people are rewarded for doing good and punished for doing bad.
Profit and loss.
Good and bad.
Morality the necessary instinct for successful human interaction without then use of force.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Atheism can only lead to amorality. Any other conclusion is just living in denial.

That's some pretty steep bullshit right there.

It is not necessary to invent a god to justify morality and moral behavior, anymore than it is necessary to do so to justify fundamental principles of natural law.

Natural law and morality can be justified based on an understanding of human nature and the human condition, simply because they make sense, from the perspective of self-preservation and the need to have a functioning society that enjoys what the SCOTUS has referred to as a "well-ordered liberty."

The Golden Rule, for example, simply makes plain, old-fashioned sense, based on how the human brain works. Treat people like crap and they will quickly decide you're an asshole and you're not going to be very successful in attempting to work with people. If you want people to treat you like a decent human being, then treat them as one. Don't steal people's stuff, because if you do, they're going to punish you - or at the very least, don't expect others to respect your rights to own your stuff.

These are fundamental principles understood by humans for thousands of years - heck, they wrote them down in the Old Testament. Of course, the authors claimed they were God's Commandments, because of a belief that people needed a higher power threatening them with serious repercussions if they didn't follow these life rules.

I have taught my kids to tell the truth and not be jerks not because "God" wants them to, but simply because it's the right thing to do and the right way to be.

I agree with the general judeo-christian values (generally) not because I share the belief in a supreme deity, but because they simply make sense. Which, I am sure, is how they came to be.

BTW, is the corollary to your proposition that theism can only lead to morality? Because that sure as shit is easy as hell to disprove.

What about polytheism?

[John]

"What about polytheism?"

You can have morality via polytheism. You need some kind of conceptual bedrock to base your morality on. You have to have some claim to make your morality better than my morality. If that claim is to Zeus, it is at least a logically valid claim. In the end, we all saying "because I said so". I am just saying God, the polythist is saying "Zeus" and the Atheist is saying "Reason or human nature". It is all the same act of faith.

[Amakudari]

So, let me get this straight:

- A monotheist can have morality via faith in god
- A polytheist can have morality via faith in gods
- An atheist cannot have morality because he possesses no faith in god

How is this not pure-T bullshit? How can an atheist not believe in some axiom and, flowing from that axiom, certain universal tenets that comprise an absolute morality?

Your argument distilled is that I am amoral, but were I to worship Purple Sky Pony who says that stealing is bad, I would be moral.

[John]

You are just not getting the argument. Take God out of it. From an atheists perspective, why is any set or morals any better or worse than another? he can't. So, from an atheist perspective, the person who says God told me to paint myself blue and eat my enemies is no more or less immoral than anyone else. In fact the whole term "moral" losses all its meaning.

[Amakudari]

Again, if PurSkyPo says stealing is wrong and I believe in PurSkyPo, would my conversion to and from PSPism show me vacillate between morality and amorality, even if I believe fundamentally that stealing is always and everywhere wrong?

Only in the religious sense does "morality" lose its meaning, but religion has not hijacked the term.

From an atheists perspective, why is any set or morals any better or worse than another?

Because the particular set of morals I ascribe to says it is. If a philosophy says something is right or wrong, and I believe in that philosophy, does it matter whether it's communicated to me through a religious or secular text?

This is ridiculously semantic.

[John]

"Because the particular set of morals I ascribe to says it is."

Good for you. But saying "because I say so" is no better or worse than saying "because God says so".

And there is nothing semantic about this. It is very important. It means that atheists need to stop pretending they are somehow any different or more rational than theists.

[John]

And again, if you think Dawkins is not an enemy of freedom, than I don't see how you can consider Christians or Hindus or anyone else who advocates for the use of government force to ensure that parents can't teach their children what they choose not to be enemies of freedom either? Right?

But Dawkins can't be evil, he is an atheist and on your team.

[Warty]

Richard Dawkins is a liberal English intellectual. Of course he's a prick. The fact that he's an atheist is just incidental.

I've never much cared for him, even though I have no belief in any gods. Of the currently prominent atheists, Hitchens is more fun to listen to, and Dan Dennett is smarter. Avoid Sam Harris at all costs.

[SugarFree]

You are my only God, Warty. But you never smite my enemies and my faith waivers.

[Warty]

Well, bring them to me so I can practice my omoplatas on them.

[John]

Not all atheists are assholes. Dawkins is. I don't understand why atheists defend him so much. He is a prick.

[Fluffy]

Dude, I totally pre-conceded in that other thread that if you ever produce a link showing me that Dawkins calls for the use of state violence in that way I will call Dawkins an enemy of freedom.

I'm going to muscle him out of the way and become #1 Special Fun Time Atheist any day now anyway.

[Warty]

I'm too busy to look it up right now, but hasn't he given speeches where he calls for the abolition of religious schools? I seem to remember watching one once.

[SugarFree]

Dawkins' "Faith School Menace" documentary argues that the UK shouldn't be putting public funds into faith-based schools. Despite whatever else he might have said, this is not a illibertarian sentiment.

[Warty]

Maybe I'm confusing that with something some other atheist said.

[R C Dean]

Meh. They all look alike, anyway.

[John Thacker]

Dawkins' "Faith School Menace" documentary argues that the UK shouldn't be putting public funds into faith-based schools. Despite whatever else he might have said, this is not a illibertarian sentiment.

But it's not necessarily libertarian, either. It's the same sort of argument as "we must/must not spend money on embryonic stem cell research." You can come up with arguments based upon libertarian principle from either side-- for example, doesn't it fit with libertarian ideals to allow parents to choose where the money devoted to their child's education should go, regardless of what type of school they choose to attend.

Similarly, you can make cases for or against abortion, vegetarianism, or animal rights based on broadly libertarian principles.

[SugarFree]

JT,

Yes, but calls defund a certain behavior are not equivalent of calls to ban that behavior. There are many things I want to the government to ban on self-ownership principles; there are millions of things I don't like, but merely don't want to pay for.

[Fluffy]

If he has done so, he is Dead To Me.

[The Angry Optimist]

You're back to number 11, Fluffster.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

Congratulations on breaking into the atheist top ten. I always enjoy reading your comments here. So I help you out & order your book.

[Fluffy]

Thank you very much!

[Fluffy]

Thank you very much!

[Fluffy]

I keep trying to post a simple "Thank you" message here, and the spam filter keeps blocking me.

I'm thinking maybe the length of the message is to blame, so I am now coming up with lots and lots of words to use to bulk up the message of Thank You Very Much into a long enough message to make it past the filter.

Thanks again!

[Sparky]

How the fuck did this pot-ad story morph into another pointless God argument? What is wrong with you people?

[Fluffy]

Because I threadjacked.

That's just how I roll.

[Sparky]

You're lucky there isn't a god.

[The Angry Optimist]

Shameless threadjacking works, Fluffy. I just bought your book as well.

[TheZeitgeist]

I look forward too and hope very much for Prop. 19's victory. I wonder how Federal efforts to control drugs will go over in California once state law is officially and completely at odds with its Federal counterparts. Hippies acting like Confederates...only in California.

[Confederate Hippie]

"The attorneys general of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, three strongly anti-drug states from the usually conservative South, filed a brief supporting Raich on the grounds of states' rights"

Gonzales v. Raich. (Medical Marjiuana SCOTUS trial).

[CosmotarianDooshCanoe]

I'm confused. How are we supposed to show that this was only dog whistle racism?

[Almanian as NAACP]

"...on the grounds of states' rights"?

Well, then they just should have said, "Because we're racist."

[sarcasmic]

If passed it will be overturned in the courts.

[Zeb]

On what grounds?

[sarcasmic]

Does it matter?
It will be overturned because too much is built upon the drug war.

[R C Dean]

On what grounds?

Supremacy Clause.

The feds have mo' betta guns, so what they say, goes. Bitchez.

[TheZeitgeist]

Honestly, that would be a fantastic development for states' rights.

Federal powergrabs endorsed via SCOTUS in the past have almost always issues that one could market as Helping the Little Guy. If they weren't, it was little-noticed because the ruling affected a very small sliver of the political demographic, one who was usually unpopular with the wider Americana of the time (a dairy owner, a wheat farmer, some ethnically Japanese guy sitting in a Utah desert).

But shooting down Prop. 19 because the Feds have primacy? All of a sudden hippies will care about states' rights. The Feds will have to assert Commerce Clause or some horseshit as to why they get to have their huge war, even when the biggest state in the union - in a political message wholly from the ballot-box - tells the goons to fuck off.

It will be awesome in the long-run for freedom in general I think. Especially for my generation (I'm 35) once we inherit the political establishment from our obviously bat-shit crazy Boomer parents.

[sarcasmic]

All of a sudden hippies will care about states' rights.

You mean states' rights will cease to be a synonym for racism and slavery?

That would be refreshing.

[Almanian as NAACP]

"States' Rights" will ALWAYS be synonymous with "racism and slavery" as long as we're around.

[?]

Cond? Nast says the subject of the ads is the problem

Fine with me, so long as their decision not to "financially benefit" from the ads isn't being influenced in any way by government pressure.

[capitol l]

I think we are seeing the stodgy and out of touch nature of the old media*.

Maybe I'm wrong, but is there anyone in that magical 18-34 age range that thinks this is actually a "controversial" issue?

*At least they're dying...wish they would go quickly.

[Mo]

Unless you're FourSquare, Facebook is hardly "old media".

[capitol l]

@Mo

I was commenting on the friction between Conde' Nast's corporate office and their web subsidiary reddit.

[Mo]

I know. But this is hardly solely a bugaboo of the old media, as evidenced by Facebook's idiotic policy.

[TheZeitgeist]

If you wanted to sell out, say you'll put a 10% surcharge on legal dope to finance a slush-fund for Legacy Media. You know, keep the Frank Riches of the world in the high six-figures lifestyle to which they are accustomed although there isn't a big enough market for their raving horseshit columns to actually pay for themselves.

Tons of "Legalize It Now" op-eds in all the "flagship" rags would ensue.

[Allen]

Facebook has a no smoking policy? Funny, they're more than happy to bombard me with cigar adverts.

[TheZeitgeist]

Cigars are an "in" thing with the "in" crowd. So you know, its not really smoking. Barack Obama smoking cigarettes is just one feature of him that proves the White Man been keep'in him down. When's the last time anyone asked Uncle Obama how many smokes he's had in the last week? Frankly, as a former smoker, the prez shouldn't be having nic-fits while dealing with the Fate of the World. He should just tell the nanniers to screw-off, smoke, and therefore think clearly for all our behalf. Take one for the team and all that. He could even brag that the resulting tumor was the "bullet" he took for Change.

[Extended Warren T]

Let freedom ring!

bong bong bong

[Fluffy]

Wow! I'm banned for saying "Thank you very much" to Cabeza?

[SugarFree]

Politeness should get you banned.

[Fluffy]

OK good, not banned. Thought I was banned for a second there.

[Sparky]

If threadjacking a perfectly harmless pot story into a excuse for John to go God-ga doesn't get you banned, nothing should.

[Fluffy]

Maybe we could do an experiment.

"How many threads must Fluffy spam and threadjack for banning to commence?"

[Sparky]

Next time, please resist God, mosques or anal intercourse. Thank you.

[Amakudari]

It would be immoral to ban someone for saying thank you.

[Joshua Conring]

Polls show yes to Prop 19 with a 9 point lead.

Why do advertisers think this is a 3rd rail issue?

[-]

Advertisers are, with very few exceptions, spineless wimps.

[TheZeitgeist]

I think they just want to keep their hair from getting frizzed by the very loud totalitarians. Totalitarians who will become much louder and nastier as this vote nears if it appears - as it surely does - that their treasured Reefer Madness is going to go up in smoke, and not by referendum in some corner-case like Vermont, or here, in My Own Private Idaho, but in the unavoidably-huge-look-at-me polity of California.