[Thepagoda]

I wonder how all of you monkies feel about the issues of Marijuana. I'm referring to marijuana, not hookers, cocaine and the war, so please don't divert the thread. I think that this is an interesting issue, but before I say too much I'd like to see what you guys have to say.

So how do you feel about Medicinal Marijuana?

How about Legalized regulated marijuana?

There are a lot of considerations here ranging from police force and foriegn spending to grandma glaucoma and taxation.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I feel that there is nothing inherently good about Marijuana.

People like to smoke it because it gets them high: Thats all, nothing more, nothing less. People like to sell it, because its an easy, cop out way to make money. simple.

Medicinal MJ would be fine, but i feel that the only reason anyone pays attention the cause is because they like the idea of Pot coming closer to being legal.

I feel that legalized MJ will only push people on to harder drugs. I think that if the Govt. say MJ is ok, it sends a direct message to our children that MJ is ok. I do not believe it is ok.

Everyone's argument about Marijuana seems to come from the standpoint that "Its not that bad" . While that may be, its certainly not any good. Why cause more problems? Dont enough bad things already exist?

 

[slein]

MJ is not a gateway drug. you have to buy the harder stuff in order to use it. using MJ does not lead you to using other substances.

people use it for a variety of reasons: rebelling against society, easing pain, going out to party, or because they want to. there are very few people that are addicted to the stuff (like less than five percent, and this is a generous figure).

the government has already said booze and smokes are okay, so children use them. proper parenting will solve this problem. legalising MJ would definitely fix the problem by not permitting anyone under the age of sixteen to have access to it. however, kids will find a way, so destroy the supply side by gov't distribution.

there are more problems by having it illegal that by legalising it. if the government were to have some sort of control, then they could profit from it. then, these cop-out drug dealers wouldn't be able to support themselves and either find real jobs or sell crack. the only thing that messes up MJ user's lives is the fact that pointless laws exist that marginalise every day people.

smoking MJ is a victimless crime because of a drug strategy designed to put as many people in jail as possible as a message from zealots who, for their reasons, don't want MJ to be used by the general public.

anyway, it seems like not a month goes by and this issue comes up. frankly, i always see the same ol' arguments and there is never a consensus.

 

[laura]

ooooo, i hate that i am even in this forum at all but i have some stuff to say about medical marajuana. i am very close to someone who uses marajuana regualrly for a chronic stomach and intestine disease. smoking marajuana allows him to eat and keep food down. it allows him minor relief from the constant pain he suffers. it helps to settle his stomach and intestines so he can go to work for 8 hours a day. it helps him sleep at night when his stomach can become the most messed up.

the doctors have prescribed a legal medicine to help with his stomach problems. it is called lamotil. it is a narcotic that makes him dizzy and tired and grouchy and the day after he takes it he throws up all morning.


just because its legal doesnt make it a better treatment. it doesnt make it better for your body either. he has found relief in marajuana. he is not going to stop smoking as are the other hundreds of thousands of people who smoke it for similar reasons.

and i personally think that prescribing your patients narcotics for their problems will lead to much heavier drug addictions than prescibing them weed.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Our public officials have destroyed their own credibility on the MJ issue through exaggeration and outright falsehood. What started with "Reefer Madness" and continued with "Just Say No" and has now blossomed into "It's More Dangerous Than We Thought". How can a government's drug policy makers expect to be taken seriously on MJ when alcohol and tobacco-proven killers- remain legal? Prohibition was proven ineffective with alcohol. Prohibition has been proven ineffective with MJ, as well. If you want to look at gateway drugs, let's look to the source:
1) Tobacco- Whether you're 16 or 18, it's legalized poison
2) Alcohol- Whether you're 18 or 21, it's legalized poison
3) Marijuana- No matter what your age, you can be sent to prison, have your property seized and your children placed in foster care for enjoying a plant that has been used by humans safely for thousands of years. Is it good for you? Hell no. Is it bad for you? Hell yes. Is it AS bad as either of the two government-approved gateway drugs experimented with by youth almost invariably before hand? Not even close. The worst thing about this trend is that because our drug policy is so skewed and unrealistic, youth feel that if their nation's leaders have been lying to them about MJ, then maybe they are lying to them about Ecstasy, LSD, Cocaine and other drugs that are actually more dangerous than MJ. Just great!

Until our drug policy is based upon realistic, comparative assessments of their respective dangers and harm reduction instead of politics, economics and cultural bias, people will continue to ignore the boy who cried wolf...even if it eventually leads to them being devoured by addiction.

 

[Spud]

I’ll bite. I think many of the proponents for medical use have a recreational agenda. Arguably, there are some acceptable and effective medical uses, especially helping people adapt during chemotherapy. I hate to see truly sick people being deprived of a substance that can help them. And I’m disgusted that schmokers find it acceptable to use chemo patients or glaucoma sufferers as a shield for their party enjoyment.

Relative to alcohol, bud has a far less detrimental effect on society (IMHO). Recreational use is not a burning issue for me (ooh, nice pun) as I don’t partake. Make the toking arguments based on toking, medical arguments based on medicine and hemp arguments based on agriculture. Don’t drag ill people or farmers in on the recreational end and don’t let the recreational users jade the arguments of medical or agricultural use.

Yeah, I know it's not that simple, but...

 

[johnhoodbikes]

smoke it if you got it, I don't smoke but i do think that it should be as legal as beer. I find it amusing that people can gather and get high off of a drink and it be exceptable but it's a crime to sit and have a smoke

 

[LoboDelFuego]

We have discussed this issue millions of times, but it always seems to resurface. There is one fact that we should all be able to agree on: Pot is bad. I don't care if you use it sparingly or daily, its still bad. Yes, so is beer, and cigarettes, and heroin, and McDonalds, but thats not the point.

That having been said, I think that if I were to propose legislation that made marijuana legal for industrial or medical purpses, but illegal to smoke, I doubt anyone would suport my position. Stop trying to hide behind "its good for some people" and "hemp oil is useful." Everyone knows you just want to get high.

Another point: I am willing to bet that 90% of marijuana useers started as kids. Kids like to do illegal things. Graffiti, drugs, drinking, theft, its all considered fun. The solution seems to just legalize it, then kds wont want to do it, right? Correct. But they wont be content. They'll try ecstasy or other drugs that have remianed illegal.

On the point of gateways: saying it is not a gateway drug is pure crap. Yes, using marijuana will not force you to buy harder drugs, or automaitcally morph inot cocaine. But it does put you in contac with drug dealers, and once you start becoming "immune" you will want harder drugs, or you will try mising it with other things.

Goddamnit, why did I type all that? The main point is, its bad, bad things are (for the most part) illegal.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by slein
MJ is not a gateway drug. you have to buy the harder stuff in order to use it. using MJ does not lead you to using other substances.

Yes, it does.

 

[Spud]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Yes, it does.

Does Not.

 

[-BB-]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I feel that there is nothing inherently good about Marijuana.


Everyone's argument about Marijuana seems to come from the standpoint that "Its not that bad" . While that may be, its certainly not any good. Why cause more problems? Dont enough bad things already exist?

1) It already exists...

2) If legalized, there would be more control over who it is sold to. Kids in highschool can get pot easier then beer (According to 20/20 and 60 minutes).

3) If legal, the govt. would be able to make BILLIONS in new taxes.

4) Alcohol has killed WAY more people than Pot.

5) Have you ever seen a High-stoner fight? What about a Drunk Bar-fight?

6) People with stock in Frito-Lay will get RICH!!
(OK, #6 is a joke, but the others AREN'T)

 

[-BB-]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
There is one fact that we should all be able to agree on: Pot is bad. I don't care if you use it sparingly or daily, its still bad. Yes, so is beer, and cigarettes, and heroin, and McDonalds, but thats not the point.

That's nnot the point?
Why not?

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego

On the point of gateways: saying it is not a gateway drug is pure crap. Yes, using marijuana will not force you to buy harder drugs, or automaitcally morph inot cocaine. But it does put you in contac with drug dealers, and once you start becoming "immune" you will want harder drugs, or you will try mising it with other things.

Ok, so by that logic, Legalizing it will give people a legal way to get it and NOT put them in contact with dealers. Thus, removing the "Gateway".
Are YOU high? All your arguements seem to be PRO leagalization.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by -BB-
That's nnot the point?
Why not?



Ok, so by that logic, Legalizing it will give people a legal way to get it and NOT put them in contact with dealers. Thus, removing the "Gateway".
Are YOU high? All your arguements seem to be PRO leagalization.

No they're not pro legalization.

Making pot legal will not keep users away from dealers when they move on to heroin will it?

How would the gateway be removed?

Just because some things are bad and legal, doesnt mean we should make more bad things legal, just so there arent as many criminals.

Hell, we could stop giving away speeding tickets just because everyone speeds, but that's not really logical is it?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by -BB-
1) It already exists...

2) If legalized, there would be more control over who it is sold to. Kids in highschool can get pot easier then beer (According to 20/20 and 60 minutes).

3) If legal, the govt. would be able to make BILLIONS in new taxes.

4) Alcohol has killed WAY more people than Pot.

5) Have you ever seen a High-stoner fight? What about a Drunk Bar-fight?

6) People with stock in Frito-Lay will get RICH!!
(OK, #6 is a joke, but the others AREN'T)

I find it funny that the same people who are pro pot, are usually always anti-big government, yet always use the argument of big tax revenue by way of legalizing pot.

Your priorities are SCREWED people. Getting HIGH is not that important.

Have you ever seen a stoner work? Or worth anything?

 

[-BB-]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I find it funny that the same people who are pro pot, are usually always anti-big government, yet always use the argument of big tax revenue by way of legalizing pot.

Your priorities are SCREWED people. Getting HIGH is not that important.

Have you ever seen a stoner work? Or worth anything?

Your resp. makes no sense. This has nothing to do with "Big Govt". It would simply be a product like any other, subject to state sales tax.

As for your sweeping generalization about people not being "worth anything"... Go bring your hate mongering somewhere else.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by -BB-
Your resp. makes no sense. This has nothing to do with "Big Govt". It would simply be a product like any other, subject to state sales tax.

As for your sweeping generalization about people not being "worth anything"... Go bring your hate mongering somewhere else.

Hahahaha!

Me and my hate mongering. Spoken like a true smoker.

 

[valve bouncer]

The twisted users of the devil's left handed tobacco must be pursued with the full force of the law and their heads must be displayed on lamp posts all over the nation.

 

[the law]

Obviously this thread will not change anyone's opinion on this topic. There are a number of pro and con arguments. Your own background experiences will dictate on which you place more emphasis. The only thing for certain is that there are few actual facts on this topic. Most of the facts (if only in their selection) is tainted by propaganda purposes. Interestingly enough, this topic has been around in one form or another for a long time. While rampant drug use certainly can endanger society, narrow-minded suppresion of drugs can also negatively impact society.

Prohibition is one great example where a narrow-minded group of "activists" attempted to impose their morals on the nation. Obviously their attempt backfired. As a result of the war on alcohol many more people died of lead than anything else. To me the most noticeable result of that piece of legislation was corruption and violence.
Similarly, alcohol is probably a bigger danger to society than marijuana. Few dope heads beat their wifes to the point of death. Similarly, alcohol when abused also causes seve health problems. As such, to me it seems a tad bit unfair to draw the line in drug control where it is now.
However, not to have any control of durg use/abuse is also dangerous. Back in the days when coca cola actually contained coke and heroin could be purchased via mail order, this country experienced severe problems with drug absue. Similarly, china's problem with opium was not only well-documented , but reached epidemic proportions resulting in a national! crisis.
In conclusion, I am not convinced that by its own nature marijuana presents more of a threat than alcohol. I am also not convinced that marijuana is more of a gateway drug than alcohol. However, I do acknowledge that there has to be some control over drug consumption. I am just not certain the government has found a good balance so far.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
The twisted users of the devil's left handed tobacco must be pursued with the full force of the law and their heads must be displayed on lamp posts all over the nation.

Wow, sorry about that folks, was temporarily possessed by Burly Surly there for minute . BS mate if anyone was in need of a big old joint it's you.

 

[-BB-]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
No they're not pro legalization.

Making pot legal will not keep users away from dealers when they move on to heroin will it?

How would the gateway be removed?

Just because some things are bad and legal, doesnt mean we should make more bad things legal, just so there arent as many criminals.

Hell, we could stop giving away speeding tickets just because everyone speeds, but that's not really logical is it?

Dude... Your arguements folow NO logical thought process. You are just talking to hear yourself talk.

First you say that Pot is a Gateway drug b/c it puts people in touch with Dealers, who may also have other Hard drugs. Thus providing an oppertunity for them to aquire them with little trouble.
Then, when I point out that legalizing it will remove the delaers from the equasion, you counter with... "But they could still go to a dealer to get Heroin"
Yeah... So could you, or so could any person who consumes alcohol. How does that support your arguement.

And to counter your point about people going to Heroin when the "pot" doesn't get them as high, that is stupid too. Beer doesn't get me as drunk as it did when I was in college. Does that mean I'm gonna start smoking CRACK?

Finally, here is what I would consider to be an arguement that follows your logic (but from the other side).
95% of heroin users drink Alcohol, but only 2% of Pot smokers use Heroin. Thus, there is a stronger correlation between Alcohol and Heroin than Pot and Heroin.

Sounds pretty dumb, huh?
Just like yout logic...

If you are going to argue a point, at least do it INTELLIGENTLY.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by the law
Obviously this thread will not change anyone's opinion on this topic. There are a number of pro and con arguments. Your own background experiences will dictate on which you place more emphasis. The only thing for certain is that there are few actual facts on this topic. Most of the facts (if only in their selection) is tainted by propaganda purposes. Interestingly enough, this topic has been around in one form or another for a long time. While rampant drug use certainly can endanger society, narrow-minded suppresion of drugs can also negatively impact society.

Prohibition is one great example where a narrow-minded group of "activists" attempted to impose their morals on the nation. Obviously their attempt backfired. As a result of the war on alcohol many more people died of lead than anything else. To me the most noticeable result of that piece of legislation was corruption and violence.
Similarly, alcohol is probably a bigger danger to society than marijuana. Few dope heads beat their wifes to the point of death. Similarly, alcohol when abused also causes seve health problems. As such, to me it seems a tad bit unfair to draw the line in drug control where it is now.
However, not to have any control of durg use/abuse is also dangerous. Back in the days when coca cola actually contained coke and heroin could be purchased via mail order, this country experienced severe problems with drug absue. Similarly, china's problem with opium was not only well-documented , but reached epidemic proportions resulting in a national! crisis.
In conclusion, I am not convinced that by its own nature marijuana presents more of a threat than alcohol. I am also not convinced that marijuana is more of a gateway drug than alcohol. However, I do acknowledge that there has to be some control over drug consumption. I am just not certain the government has found a good balance so far.

Good points there Mr Law. Certainly a balance must be found because sure as sh*t people aren't gonna stop smoking, drinking and taking drugs.

 

[-BB-]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Hahahaha!

Me and my hate mongering. Spoken like a true smoker.

OK... then I'll just call it like I see it rather than candy-coat my words. You seem, from your arguements, to be a totaly moronic Meat-head Bigot.
Is that better?

 

[-BB-]

Originally posted by the law
Obviously this thread will not change anyone's opinion on this topic. There are a number of pro and con arguments. Your own background experiences will dictate on which you place more emphasis. The only thing for certain is that there are few actual facts on this topic. Most of the facts (if only in their selection) is tainted by propaganda purposes. Interestingly enough, this topic has been around in one form or another for a long time. While rampant drug use certainly can endanger society, narrow-minded suppresion of drugs can also negatively impact society.

Prohibition is one great example where a narrow-minded group of "activists" attempted to impose their morals on the nation. Obviously their attempt backfired. As a result of the war on alcohol many more people died of lead than anything else. To me the most noticeable result of that piece of legislation was corruption and violence.
Similarly, alcohol is probably a bigger danger to society than marijuana. Few dope heads beat their wifes to the point of death. Similarly, alcohol when abused also causes seve health problems. As such, to me it seems a tad bit unfair to draw the line in drug control where it is now.
However, not to have any control of durg use/abuse is also dangerous. Back in the days when coca cola actually contained coke and heroin could be purchased via mail order, this country experienced severe problems with drug absue. Similarly, china's problem with opium was not only well-documented , but reached epidemic proportions resulting in a national! crisis.
In conclusion, I am not convinced that by its own nature marijuana presents more of a threat than alcohol. I am also not convinced that marijuana is more of a gateway drug than alcohol. However, I do acknowledge that there has to be some control over drug consumption. I am just not certain the government has found a good balance so far.

VERY well said.
Finally, someone who has a brain.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
The twisted users of the devil's left handed tobacco must be pursued with the full force of the law and their heads must be displayed on lamp posts all over the nation.

LMFAO I love extreme comments -- even if sarcastic -- just too enjoyable.


Tobacco is more evil than pot

I'm a bit twisted in that I think pot should be legal and tobacco illegal. And while I like alcohol, that sh!t kills far more than pot does.

I know, we're supposed to stay focused on pot and not bring in other things like tobacco, but I think it's quite fair to compare the two plants.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by -BB-
Dude... Your arguements folow NO logical thought process. You are just talking to hear yourself talk.

First you say that Pot is a Gateway drug b/c it puts people in touch with Dealers, who may also have other Hard drugs. Thus providing an oppertunity for them to aquire them with little trouble.
Then, when I point out that legalizing it will remove the delaers from the equasion, you counter with... "But they could still go to a dealer to get Heroin"
Yeah... So could you, or so could any person who consumes alcohol. How does that support your arguement.

Hey, try actually reading a post before you respond.

I never said a damned thing about contact with dealers being the "Gateway" The drug itself is the gateway, regardless if its bought at 7-11 or from Reggie the crack dealer. You just made that up........you're probably halucinating.
You're still clinging to the "pot isnt that bad" argument that i pointed out in my first post, and its obvious that that's all you have. Its pretty sad how much this all means to you actually.

So now, if you feel like putting some more words in my mouth, at least find a new angle

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I never said a damned thing about contact with dealers being the "Gateway" The drug itself is the gateway...

pot doesn't lead to other drugs... it's leads to carpentry

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by -BB-
Dude... Your arguements folow NO logical thought process. You are just talking to hear yourself talk.

First you say that Pot is a Gateway drug b/c it puts people in touch with Dealers, who may also have other Hard drugs. Thus providing an oppertunity for them to aquire them with little trouble.
Then, when I point out that legalizing it will remove the delaers from the equasion, you counter with... "But they could still go to a dealer to get Heroin"
Yeah... So could you, or so could any person who consumes alcohol. How does that support your arguement.

And to counter your point about people going to Heroin when the "pot" doesn't get them as high, that is stupid too. Beer doesn't get me as drunk as it did when I was in college. Does that mean I'm gonna start smoking CRACK?

Finally, here is what I would consider to be an arguement that follows your logic (but from the other side).
95% of heroin users drink Alcohol, but only 2% of Pot smokers use Heroin. Thus, there is a stronger correlation between Alcohol and Heroin than Pot and Heroin.

Sounds pretty dumb, huh?
Just like yout logic...

If you are going to argue a point, at least do it INTELLIGENTLY.

It is a well known fact that 98.9 percent of herion users consumed carrots in the week leading up to their initial use of herion. Researchers have thus cautiously linked carrots as a gateway food to herion addiction. I mean the link is too obvious.


Remeber too BB that arguing with BS is like coming up against a one-legged man in an arse kicking contest. He tries hard but he just ain't got the goods to compete.
(P.S- just wouldn't be a political debate forum thread if I didn't abuse BS at least once )

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by -BB-
OK... then I'll just call it like I see it rather than candy-coat my words. You seem, from your arguements, to be a totaly moronic Meat-head Bigot.
Is that better?

Ha ha, listen the enlightened one resort to petty name calling and insults.

way to go.

 

[LordOpie]

pot = happy + stupid

The world needs more happy shiny people... just ask REM!

 

[Spud]

Originally posted by BurlySurly


Have you ever seen a stoner work? Or worth anything?

You don't get out much do you? Yes, many times. Small business owners responsible for meeting payroll, volunteer coaches, very active and loving parents - these people are arguably frigging pillars of their community.

For someone who is (rightfully) quick to slam others for stereotyping, you certainly seem to carry some strong prejudices on this issue.

 

[Thepagoda]

Mr. -BB- has appealed to many of the arguments that I find particularly relevent to the issue.

I think that the first and most important feature of legalization is that the the drug could be regulated. Either for more medicinal purposes in the same way that prescription drugs are legal now, or like tobacco and alcohol which have regulated sales. Now if what the media is telling us is true (20/20 and 60 minutes) and it is easier to for kids to get pot than it is to get beer, then there is a serious problem. It is not the drug that is the gateway, it is the dealer. Drug dealers don't just deal marijuana, they deal coke, smack, ecstacy, ice or whatever poision you want, but by putting people in contact with them you open up innumerable possibilities for them to try when they have an impulse. Marijuana is not as bad as many other drugs (both illicit and not illicit), I doubt the rate of hard drug abuse would increase as a result of legalizing marijuana.

Economically speaking the benefits of legalizing marijuana outright would be incredible. the war on drugs costs this country hundreds of millions of dollars a year (last year alone we spent over $400 million in aid to colombia to help their anti-drug campaigns), some of that money could be saved through the legalization of a drug that is less deleterious than alcohol or tobacco. furthermore foreign drug czars and dealers alike stand to lose an awful lot of money if marijuana becomes legal. this helps to stabilize countries like Panama, Colombia and Ecuador by providing them with a stable export (kind of like tea in India or coffee in Guatemala), and by reducing the profit margin of those struggling for political dominance within the country. Now I know that those of you who dislike the legalization stance will try to debase this argument by extending it to cocaine and heroine, but before you do so, remember that clinically marijuana has been proven to be less detrimental to your (not to mention those around you) health than both tobacco and alcohol which are currently legal and regulated in this country.

for concrete evidence on the above statement about detrimental effects search out the Report that the Canadian Gov't just used, or look at Lancet (British medical journal) 11/14/1998. there are many more available as well.

Environmentally there are a lot of ways that hemp seed oil could be used in addition to the possibilities for cloth and paper. think about how many forests you could ride through if they did not have to be chopped down to make newspapers to report the war.


Whether or not I'm pro big government or not is not the point, the poeple I am trying to convince are. By making arguments that should appeal to them (like their governers can have more revenues to spend on platinum watches and new kitchens) they should be able to see at least some of the validity to the argument. I'm not trying to convince myself.



Bottom line is this, as it stands now the government has no way to regulate the sales of marijuana, to regulate its quality or to tax the revenues from it. Legalizing marijuana solves many problems, but admittedly opens the door on some new ones, one of which is drug awareness. (a prbolem that really already exists). revenues from taxation could be spent on drug education.

Just tink about that!

OH, thought I might mention that I am not a smoker, so doesn't really matter to me on that level.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Thepagoda


Bottom line is this, as it stands now the government has no way to regulate the sales of marijuana, to regulate its quality or to tax the revenues from it. Legalizing marijuana solves many problems, but admittedly opens the door on some new ones, one of which is drug awareness. (a prbolem that really already exists). revenues from taxation could be spent on drug education.

Just tink about that!

OH, thought I might mention that I am not a smoker, so doesn't really matter to me on that level.

Why not just legalize all drugs then? Then there'd be no need for drug education, and we could pocket all the money. Seriously, this goes beyone tax dollars and spending here.

If we're not willing to keep the line drawn at one point, why even make a new one?

 

[-BB-]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Hey, try actually reading a post before you respond.

I never said a damned thing about contact with dealers being the "Gateway" The drug itself is the gateway, regardless if its bought at 7-11 or from Reggie the crack dealer. You just made that up........you're probably halucinating.
You're still clinging to the "pot isnt that bad" argument that i pointed out in my first post, and its obvious that that's all you have. Its pretty sad how much this all means to you actually.

So now, if you feel like putting some more words in my mouth, at least find a new angle

Ok... my bad. That was Logodel fuego, not you.
My apologies.

As for my "It isnt that bad" arguement, Prove that it IS that bad then.
What other arguement is needed?

 

[Silver]

I've said this before, in another one of these threads, so I'm starting to feel like I just can't get any blood out of the damn stone, but I'll do it again.

I once told BS to go look up the stats for marijuana use in the Netherlands. Or maybe read the report that the Canadian senate did on marijuana. There are some surprising revelations to be had.

Of course, when I posted some links, BS said he wasn't going to look at any stats or read propaganda from the Canadian government.

One more time:

The government has no right to tell me what I can and can't put into my body. Whether it be Drano, Heroin, Tobacco, Alcohol, Marijuana, etc....it doesn't matter to me. If you want to keep telling me how we live in the greatest and most free country in the world, STOP telling me what I can put into my body. STOP telling doctors what they can and can't prescribe to their patients. If we are in such a free country, let me kill myself with heroin if I want to. It's not your right to stop me until I physically harm you.

And just to nip the "people driving high" or "people stealing to get drugs" argument that I know is forthcoming, why not just enforce laws we already have. It is illegal to drive impaired. It is illegal to steal. Seems pretty obvious to me.

Or else just stay in blissful fairy wonderland. Your choice.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Why not just legalize all drugs then? Then there'd be no need for drug education, and we could pocket all the money. Seriously, this goes beyone tax dollars and spending here.

If we're not willing to keep the line drawn at one point, why even make a new one?

Now you're starting to make sense. I'd still like to see it regulated though, much like alcohol.

How often do you hear about people going blind drinking moonshine, by the way? Or the last time the guy driving the Budweiser truck got shot by a bunch of gansters?

Doesn't happen much since prohibition got repealed...

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Why not just legalize all drugs then? Then there'd be no need for drug education, and we could pocket all the money. Seriously, this goes beyone tax dollars and spending here.

If we're not willing to keep the line drawn at one point, why even make a new one?

Don't do what you accuse others of doing. He specifically addressed this point in the 2nd paragraph of his post.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Don't do what you accuse others of doing. He specifically addressed this point in the 2nd paragraph of his post.

Dude, Im not.

Im only taking what he's saying a step further, because I dont think he adressed it well at all. So what if its not "AS BAD". Its all the same thing......a substance to get you HIGH.

I personally feel that we have enough of those already legal, and theyre a big enough problem by themselves.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Dude, Im not.

Im only taking what he's saying a step further, because I dont think he adressed it well at all. So what if its not "AS BAD". Its all the same thing......a substance to get you HIGH.

I personally feel that we have enough of those already legal, and theyre a big enough problem by themselves.

Do you drink alcohol BS? If you do what do you see as the difference between alcohol and drugs?

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by Silver
Or the last time the guy driving the Budweiser truck got shot by a bunch of gansters?

Doesn't happen much since prohibition got repealed...

Yeah but it should happen more, especially to Budweiser trucks- that cat's p*ss is a crime against humanity equalled only by Fosters.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Do you drink alcohol BS? If you do what do you see as the difference between alcohol and drugs?

no.