jcd11235 0
Well, personally, having been around pot smokers and around drunks, I'd hang out with the pot smokers if I had to pick between the two.
Reasons:**
Pot smokers are less likely to start fights
Pot smokers are less likely to want to drive
It's a lot harder to provoke someone who's high. It's easy to provoke a drunk.
**This is just my personal experience.
Reasons:**
Pot smokers are less likely to start fights
Pot smokers are less likely to want to drive
It's a lot harder to provoke someone who's high. It's easy to provoke a drunk.
**This is just my personal experience.
Gawain 0
QuoteFirst, bombs are tools too. Should they be legal?
Don't get silly.
QuoteSecond, our brain has recepticals for canabinoids. I have never seen any eveidence, or even credible hypotheses, claiming a chemical inbalance.
I wasn't trying to infer a medical condition per se. I am saying that guns do not cause an inhibiting or impairing affect on an individual's judgement the way drugs do.
QuoteHow about an apples and apples comparison. Why do you believe alcohol and nicotine should remain legal while simultaneously claiming cannabis should remain illegal? Aside from the fact that cannabis is far and away the safer of the three substances, I don't see the distinction.
I won't dispute the "safety" you mention out of the three. I will dispute that nicotine, despite its toxicity and addictiveness, when injested via tobacco does not cause impairment the way getting high or drunk does. Alcohol, the grandaddy of them all...honestly, I don't care if it's legal or not. I do think that having it legal is enough (i.e. we already have dangerous substances legal, you can't have your cake and eat it too by legalizing everything else).
Also, when looked at on a global scale, drugs are comparitively illegal everywhere, except for a few cities in Europe and maybe some provinces in Asia that no one in the modern world gives a sh*t about. The problem with trying to make alcohol or cigarettes illegal is it comparitive availability everywhere else in the world.
That's not just politics, that's plain and simple life, no matter where you go.
Of course, as I don't use any of these substances, I don't care for myself. And if other people want to smoke it fine, I won't stop you, it's your business. But know this, it is currently illegal and your choice has far more grave potential consequences than my choice not to smoke. As soon as that choice impedes on me or my family though (i.e. DUI type thing or other unproper behavior), expect to be nailed to the wall with every attempt to make your life miserable.
See where the tobacco market will start going as more and more taxes are levied against it. Smoking rates have not significantly decreased BTW.
I've lost friends and family to all of these substances, and some that are not in this topic of conversation.
I see absolutely no value or significant contribution to society in making "pot" legal. It will create more problems than it will solve.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
jcd11235 0
QuoteI won't dispute the "safety" you mention out of the three. I will dispute that nicotine, despite its toxicity and addictiveness, when injested via tobacco does not cause impairment the way getting high or drunk does. Alcohol, the grandaddy of them all...honestly, I don't care if it's legal or not. I do think that having it legal is enough (i.e. we already have dangerous substances legal, you can't have your cake and eat it too by legalizing everything else).
Here you go from, first, conceding my point on relative safety, to your last thought, again referring to marijuana as an element of a set labeled "dangerous substances." The very reason it should be legal if alcohol is legal is that it offers a much safer alternative to alcohol's intoxicating effects. In fact, you would be very hard pressed to find a single other pschoactive substance that is lower in toxicity than cannabis.
QuoteAlso, when looked at on a global scale, drugs are comparitively illegal everywhere, except for a few cities in Europe and maybe some provinces in Asia that no one in the modern world gives a sh*t about. The problem with trying to make alcohol or cigarettes illegal is it comparitive availability everywhere else in the world.
I'm not sure which countries you are referring to that no one gives a shit about. I hope you speak only for yourself on that point.
Do you really think that availability is a major problem? As far as foreign drug laws go, some of those laws are stipulations of US assistance. And others are not enforced. In fact, unless it has changed in the past couple of years, or so, marijuana use is no longer an arrestable offense in UK. And Canada has been rethinking their stance in the issue as well, as I understand it.
QuoteAs soon as that choice impedes on me or my family though (i.e. DUI type thing or other unproper behavior), expect to be nailed to the wall with every attempt to make your life miserable.
Actually, studies show that, while cannabis use can affect driving ability, it does so on a much lesser magnatude than does alcohol. In fact, regular users that have just smoked an amount smaller than usual, actually consistantly perform slightly better than if completely sober. I think it was AAA that did the study, but I'll have to go talk to my local Freedom Fighter before I can site the reference.
I'm not saying that it's a good idea to drive while high, I'm just saying that the fears are largely unwarranted.
QuoteI've lost friends and family to all of these substances, and some that are not in this topic of conversation.
I have to ask how you lost a friend/loved one to marijuana use. They died? Or stopped being your friend/loved one? Just curious.
QuoteI see absolutely no value or significant contribution to society in making "pot" legal. It will create more problems than it will solve.
Aside from food, fuel, medicinal, paper, clothing, housing, and transportation applications, as well as providing a tax source, you're right, it wouldn't solve any problems.
==`0
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
QuoteIn Reply To
Social programs for what? Pot junkies....lol. I can see it now a corp of people that show up smack the joint out of someones face and start nagging them to get a job, clean the house, and quit smoking so much fucking dope!!! Yea pot junkies I hate them. They'll lie, steal, kill, and maim to get their fix plus they do all that crazy shit when their high. Their definitly not sedate like alchoholics.
No argument there. I even pointed that out in my original post, that heavy pot smokers probably do not pose the same "drain" on society that other drug users or addicts can, but the point being that one of the results of the tobacco settlement (a cool $360B+ venture) requires the creation of new social programs at a state level to provide cancer treatments. The same thing will happen with pot smokers. One of these guys will get off his @ss and say, "hey man....*toke*...this stuff hurts my lungs and despite your warnings I'm going to sue for damages...and while I'm on treatment I want free pot to ease my suffering man....*toke*...*cough*"
Are you trying to say that someone who smokes pot will sue to get free pot? Now who's comparing apples to oranges. I understand the Govenment study in the 70's said that smoking a joint was like smoking 10 packs of cigarrettes, but I have my doubts as to the validity of that study. Please do point me to your references that show weed causes cancer and brain imbalance.
QuoteIn Reply To
The underground drug lords as you call them are in bed with politicians and law enforcement. The only control they would have would be a select few who the government would choose(like after prohibition). The main reason that hemp is illegal is because the American public guilible as always bought into the massive infowar waged by Hearst in the 30's.....see reefer madness. All he was really concerned with was hemp as competition to his paper concerns.
Ah, but in the case of hemp, there was a requirement for farmers to use 10% of their land to grow it for the government. Even then, "hemp" is a different plant from today's "one hit sh*t" and does not "bud" itself as readily, it is very suitable for clothing etc.
Alright I'm not going to go into cultivation of hemp vs weed, but it's the same plant. My main point is that it was made illegal through misinformation that the American public bought, and the only reason that misinformation was spread was because some rich fuckstick couldn't deal with some competition.
QuoteIn Reply To
I have two questions for you
1 do you feel that alchohol and nicotine should be illegal?
No.
2 Why do you feel that guns should be legal and not drugs?
Apples and oranges, but simple: guns are a tool, a weapon and do not cause a chemical imbalance thus impairing and individual's judgement the way drugs can, and do.
PSSST alchohol and nicotine are drugs and they both impair judgement, alchohol to a much higher degree. Guns kill joints don't
I find it interesting that you think alchohol is OK when it impairs judgement more then weed and nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs legal or illegal. I also find it interesting that you think that the federal government needs to spend lots of money to try and stop something they will admit can't be stopped until the demand disappears. Why not legalize it, tax it, and get rid of all the cowboy and indian bullshit.
PS in a totally of the subject thought do you know where crack came from?
While I am not denying that strains have been bred for potency, the most important contributing factor, according to Herer, is the proximity to one another the seeds are sewn. I think he broke it down as follows.
If the seeds are planted numerously, in very close proximity, they will tend to develop tall stalks, at the expense of seed and foliage, in order to compete for sunlight.
If the seeds are grownumerously, but with a little bit more space, and the male plants are not removed, the plants will seed heavily.
If they are grown even farther apart, and especially if the male plants are removed, then the flowers (buds) will be plentiful, as the plant is attempting to reproduce, and senses a need for as many "pollen recepticles" as possible.
First, bombs are tools too. Should they be legal?
Second, our brain has recepticals for canabinoids. I have never seen any eveidence, or even credible hypotheses, claiming a chemical inbalance.
How about an apples and apples comparison. Why do you believe alcohol and nicotine should remain legal while simultaneously claiming cannabis should remain illegal? Aside from the fact that cannabis is far and away the safer of the three substances, I don't see the distinction.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites