Legalizing Marijuana

[jonny88]

Pot stinks and so does tobacco. I hate the smell of both. It's gross. I can't believe it took us so long to ban smoking in restaurants. Now I'll have to smell my neighbors party too?

There's my argument.

And why doesn't anyone ever complain about all the cig butts people litter the streets with? Nothing grosser then a 7-11 parking lot.

BB

l went to a bar 2 hours from my home town yesturday and you can smoke there it was awsome to finaly be in a bar have a beer and a cigar.

 

[Deadly Dagger]

laundry becomes enjoyable.. i do the same..

lol...laundry boi

*smokes pot*

 

[Trustey]

Hey I don't smoke weed, not since I was a teen. It just makes me feel stupid, lazy, and unable to carry an intelligent conversation. But I like the idea of the people deciding how to live in their state and country. If taxpaying citizens want it this way, I'm a soldier it's my job to support that. Plus taxing the ____ out anything and anyone is where my paycheck comes from. Who am I to argue?

 

[devilof76]

I'd gladly be taxed to pay you for what you do. Aside from the fact that you do one of the only jobs that deserves tax allocation, you also have a great perspective on this.

My feelings are legalizing it will lead to more people smoking it and more people with harder substance abuse problems. JMHO, which I am allowed.

I realize I'm not going to get much sympathy for this position, but why do you think that kind of social engineering is proper? If legalization leads to more people smoking it, is that really your business? If they go on to harder substances, is that your business? A person under the influence is only guilty of being under the influence until they do something that effects other people, and there are already laws that cover those crimes and misdemeanors. Should inebriation be considered an aggravating factor? I don't see why not. But if a person is not violating your rights, then how do you claim the prerogative to control their behavior? Because they might do something bad? Tell me you don't smell the jackboots on that one.

Yea but my point is is that most people can have 2 or 3 or more drinks and be perfectly fine where as most people will smoke 1 joint and be loopy. That's why I can't put them in the same category.

I disagree with your assessment. A person can have 10 drinks and show no effects if they're a practiced alcoholic. Do they appear sober for all intents and purposes? Yes. Should they drive a car?

The effects of a whole joint on me are nothing compared to three drinks. The incapacity I experience from drinking is far more severe than anything I experience from smoking. They are not comparable.

Unless I had like 4 or more shots or drank 12 beers I could probably handle some a minor incident, such as putting out a fire from a candle that tipped over.
Realisticly, how fast would pot knock someone out of it?

I would have to smoke a hell of a lot to be 'out of it'. I would have to drink very little.

And to answer your previous question, according to the founding law of this country, the purpose of law is to protect individual rights. It is not to make people do what is best for all, or even for themselves.

Obviously, welfare is an instance of the latter. And I don't know that I can agree with it being worse than being arrested for dealing drugs. The actual portion of taxes that go to welfare are small. The greater problem is subsidies, and the administrative structures that provide for general assistance, i.e. the people employed by the government to do the work required to get both subsidies and welfare checks to the people who consume them. (Can we include the work you do, as a government employee, in that? Good question.)

Pot stinks and so does tobacco. I hate the smell of both. It's gross. I can't believe it took us so long to ban smoking in restaurants. Now I'll have to smell my neighbors party too?

Were those your restaurants? Were you the property owner who decided to ban smoking in your restaurant? No? You're just a customer? A voluntary customer who has the power to choose whether or not to enter an establishment where smoking is allowed? How does it feel to have a choice? Because the owner of the establishment no longer has it. They must bow to your preference, or face legal action. Their freedom has been curtailed to accomodate your bloated conception of what your rights are.

So sick of listening to fascist crap like this.

 

[jonny88]

I'd gladly be taxed to pay you for what you do. Aside from the fact that you do one of the only jobs that deserves tax allocation, you also have a great perspective on this.



I realize I'm not going to get much sympathy for this position, but why do you think that kind of social engineering is proper? If legalization leads to more people smoking it, is that really your business? If they go on to harder substances, is that your business? A person under the influence is only guilty of being under the influence until they do something that effects other people, and there are already laws that cover those crimes and misdemeanors. Should inebriation be considered an aggravating factor? I don't see why not. But if a person is not violating your rights, then how do you claim the prerogative to control their behavior? Because they might do something bad? Tell me you don't smell the jackboots on that one.



I disagree with your assessment. A person can have 10 drinks and show no effects if they're a practiced alcoholic. Do they appear sober for all intents and purposes? Yes. Should they drive a car?

The effects of a whole joint on me are nothing compared to three drinks. The incapacity I experience from drinking is far more severe than anything I experience from smoking. They are not comparable.



I would have to smoke a hell of a lot to be 'out of it'. I would have to drink very little.

And to answer your previous question, according to the founding law of this country, the purpose of law is to protect individual rights. It is not to make people do what is best for all, or even for themselves.

Obviously, welfare is an instance of the latter. And I don't know that I can agree with it being worse than being arrested for dealing drugs. The actual portion of taxes that go to welfare are small. The greater problem is subsidies, and the administrative structures that provide for general assistance, i.e. the people employed by the government to do the work required to get both subsidies and welfare checks to the people who consume them. (Can we include the work you do, as a government employee, in that? Good question.)



Were those your restaurants? Were you the property owner who decided to ban smoking in your restaurant? No? You're just a customer? A voluntary customer who has the power to choose whether or not to enter an establishment where smoking is allowed? How does it feel to have a choice? Because the owner of the establishment no longer has it. They must bow to your preference, or face legal action. Their freedom has been curtailed to accomodate your bloated conception of what your rights are.

So sick of listening to fascist crap like this.

the smoking in restaurants ban is a complete jike in my opinion,theres no reason why big fans couldnt be installed to suck the smoke to the ceiling and out the building.this was just another way for the goverment to control people.and people who were complaining would not even know other people would be smoking across from them if proper fans were used.

 

[hoodonit00]

I'd gladly be taxed to pay you for what you do. Aside from the fact that you do one of the only jobs that deserves tax allocation, you also have a great perspective on this.



I realize I'm not going to get much sympathy for this position, but why do you think that kind of social engineering is proper? If legalization leads to more people smoking it, is that really your business? If they go on to harder substances, is that your business? A person under the influence is only guilty of being under the influence until they do something that effects other people, and there are already laws that cover those crimes and misdemeanors. Should inebriation be considered an aggravating factor? I don't see why not. But if a person is not violating your rights, then how do you claim the prerogative to control their behavior? Because they might do something bad? Tell me you don't smell the jackboots on that one.



I disagree with your assessment. A person can have 10 drinks and show no effects if they're a practiced alcoholic. Do they appear sober for all intents and purposes? Yes. Should they drive a car?

The effects of a whole joint on me are nothing compared to three drinks. The incapacity I experience from drinking is far more severe than anything I experience from smoking. They are not comparable.



I would have to smoke a hell of a lot to be 'out of it'. I would have to drink very little.

And to answer your previous question, according to the founding law of this country, the purpose of law is to protect individual rights. It is not to make people do what is best for all, or even for themselves.

Obviously, welfare is an instance of the latter. And I don't know that I can agree with it being worse than being arrested for dealing drugs. The actual portion of taxes that go to welfare are small. The greater problem is subsidies, and the administrative structures that provide for general assistance, i.e. the people employed by the government to do the work required to get both subsidies and welfare checks to the people who consume them. (Can we include the work you do, as a government employee, in that? Good question.)



Were those your restaurants? Were you the property owner who decided to ban smoking in your restaurant? No? You're just a customer? A voluntary customer who has the power to choose whether or not to enter an establishment where smoking is allowed? How does it feel to have a choice? Because the owner of the establishment no longer has it. They must bow to your preference, or face legal action. Their freedom has been curtailed to accomodate your bloated conception of what your rights are.

So sick of listening to fascist crap like this.

Forgive my ignorance as I haven't figured out this multi-quote stuff yet. Just to touch on your responses to me. I am no expert on these matters. My responses have to do with what I have witnessed first hand, what I read about, and the occasional documentary on drugs.

You say what business is it of mine or anyone else if someone is smoking pot or doing harder drugs. You're right, it is not my business. At least while they keep it to themselves. To many times though harder drugs like coke and meth affect so many more than just the individual. So many crimes are interlocked with drugs. Murder, prostitution, home invasions, stealing, gang wars, all over hard drugs. Look how much we have of it now. Throw in loss of production and more welfare for those who are no longer upstanding members of society. Now if you believe what I believe, that pot is a gateway drug, double that amount of crime. I understand those of you who smoke pot don't all go on to harder stuff but some do.

As far as you being more incapacitated from 3 drinks than 1 joint. I would have to say you are in the minority.

 

[nash]

My feelings are pot is a gateway drug. I know someone is going to say I am full of BS, I don't care. I have witnessed first hand problems in my family from it. My feelings are legalizing it will lead to more people smoking it and more people with harder substance abuse problems. JMHO, which I am allowed.

the whole notion of pot being a 'gateway drug' is just absolutely retarded and ignorant.

Nothing about pot makes you want to try hardcore drugs. if a person is going to do coke or heroin, they will do it regardless if they smoke pot or not.

 

[nash]

Yea but my point is is that most people can have 2 or 3 or more drinks and be perfectly fine where as most people will smoke 1 joint and be loopy. That's why I can't put them in the same category.

again, you are thinking about this from an ignorant point of view.

Just because you have 2 or 3 drinks and "feel" fine, doesn't mean that according to state alcohol limits that you ARE fine. 2-3 drinks can easily make your blood acohol level go above a .08 which in my state (hawaii) is the legal limit while driving.

 

[devilof76]

Either I'm in the minority, or I'm more conscious of my impairment.

I understand the effects that hard drugs have on their users. I also know that there is no drug that eliminates free will. Even if it did, the user would be responsible for having chosen to suspend their volition, and would still be fully accountable for their actions. Saying the drug caused the crimes exonerates the user. To legally recognize rights requires that the legal responsibility for one's actions are their own. I believe that criminalization serves to alleviate that responsibility. I have seen OUI recidivists kill, and still go on to make the papers again, years later, when they've managed to earn 9th charge. He ran down a high school senior, riding his bike in broad daylight, months before he was to attend Boston University for journalism. Only child too. But I believe that was only the second time he got caught drinking and driving.

You have my full sympathies for having lived with substance abuse, and my full sympathies when it comes to this country's practice of compulsive charity for those who don't deserve it. But the only thing I've seen drug prohibition achieve is not one god damned thing, other than to exacerbate the problem. People are not held accountable in this system, and legalization across the board would go many miles towards correcting that situation.

 

[pixletwin]

the smoking in restaurants ban is a complete jike in my opinion,theres no reason why big fans couldnt be installed to suck the smoke to the ceiling and out the building.this was just another way for the goverment to control people.and people who were complaining would not even know other people would be smoking across from them if proper fans were used.

Right I am sure there are lots of business that would just love to purchase giant smoke sucking fans... of course they could always just pass the cost on to their customers by raising their prices which I am sure would have no effect on their sales... That would be AWESOME!

 

[CelticPredator]

Actually, I learned a lot in my high school life about weed.

1: Does it make you feel lazy? It can yes. But, it can also make you want to get up, run around the block, jump on stuff....ect. You could call it an energy booster sometimes.

The people you see, who talk all slow, walk all slow, and just dont do anything are the people who smoked non stop for a few years. And it aint just the weed. They do OTHER stuff as well....which brings me to the next point.

2: Weed is a gateway drug? To ********* who just have a need to get ____ed up every day of their life, yes it is. Those people are the one's that will do everything and anything to make their life seem more....interesting? I know kids who are just insane with this. They do coke, crack, they drink every single day, every night, even on school nights mind you.

I even know a kid who loves weed, but cant smoke it because of his dad. You know what he does sometimes? ____ing coke. What the ____.

But not everyone is like that. Only the people that some new high that's not possible from weed. I dont understand it. I quit smoking because I hate how people are reacting to the stuff, like they need it.

It's fun, I loved it....but just watching these people, smoking every single weekend, all the time, doing nothing else. Annoys me.

Obviously none of these people are responsible with their ganj, but hey.

 

[Mesa]

the whole notion of pot being a 'gateway drug' is just absolutely retarded and ignorant.

Nothing about pot makes you want to try hardcore drugs. if a person is going to do coke or heroin, they will do it regardless if they smoke pot or not.

I think with the current "war on drugs" mentality, pot may become a gateway drug for some. I was brainwashed to believe that if you smoked pot, you'd go do something crazy like jump out a window or run into traffic. When I found that to be not the case at all, I started wondering what else have I been told that wasn't true. That led to harder stuff. After a few bad trips I realized that LSD, Coke, etc. really are bad and dangerous substances that will cause you to act irrationally and uncontrollably.


I blame the government/Schools for lumping marijuana into the same category as narcotics. It can be very misleading if you think you are going to behave the same under the influence of a little weed as you are under the psychedelic effects of LSD because that's what you've been told time and again through school, TV PSA commercials, etc., and then when you don't act a fool after your first joint, you may be more willing to try other stuff that is very dangerous. That's the gateway IMO. Stop lying about marijuana, over-exaggerating its effects, be honest about it, and be honest about how dangerous other drugs really are, and I think it would truly educate people to not think they provide for the same experience. Marijuana should be treated like drinking a 6 pack of beers, don't go driving immediately afterwards. Narcotics should be treated as causing you to lose self control with the potential of harming yourself and/or others. They are not the same thing.

 

[hoodonit00]

the whole notion of pot being a 'gateway drug' is just absolutely retarded and ignorant.

Nothing about pot makes you want to try hardcore drugs. if a person is going to do coke or heroin, they will do it regardless if they smoke pot or not.

Why? What doesn't make sense about it. Are you saying that people who have smoked pot for many years get the same kind of buzz they used to when they first started from the same amount? That people don't smoke more to get the same buzz? Those kind of people who build a tolerance up, don't you think it's possible that they will try something harder to get the same effect?

 

[CelticPredator]

That actually makes a bit of sense Mesa. But I dont think it applys to everyone. Some people ARE just dumb, and they WILL just do whatever they can to get a buzz. Or get "all ____ed up".

 

[CelticPredator]

Why? What doesn't make sense about it. Are you saying that people who have smoked pot for many years get the same kind of buzz they used to when they first started from the same amount? That people don't smoke more to get the same buzz? Those kind of people who build a tolerance up, don't you think it's possible that they will try something harder to get the same effect?

Possible? Sure. Anything's possible. But I KILLED my very low tolerance for weed by drinking a THC filled iced coffie thing. KILLED it. I cant smoke my teeny tiny amount any more. Which depressed me.

The only other "drug" I do, is booze. But only at parties. And not every day.

 

[ProgMatinee]

the people employed by the government to do the work required to get both subsidies and welfare checks to the people who consume them. (Can we include the work you do, as a government employee, in that? Good question.)

LOL. Nice laser beam you're focusing on me. I actually agree in general about government programs, specifically the ones that aim to help individuals do the things that individuals can and should do themselves.
But don't lump all government programs and employees together.
I work in transportation. The money we receive and put to use help entire communities as well as the individual get from point A to point B so they can get to their jobs, transport goods, safely get to hospitals and schools and go shopping.
Is this a service anyone could provide themselves? Do you have the knowledge or time or materials to pave a road between your garage and all the locations you need to get to?
The only other solution to this is to privitize, which is a viable option and my position would be working for a private corp. Instread of taxes my job would be paid for through toll fees. Just cause I work for the government doesn't make my position superfluous.

There are a lot of programs though that are, and I would support eliminating a lot of social type programs.

 

[BadMoon]

I'm going to smoke and then read this entire thread again "on weed".

 

[hoodonit00]

again, you are thinking about this from an ignorant point of view.

Just because you have 2 or 3 drinks and "feel" fine, doesn't mean that according to state alcohol limits that you ARE fine. 2-3 drinks can easily make your blood acohol level go above a .08 which in my state (hawaii) is the legal limit while driving.

Actually with my body weight I am no where near being illegal drinking 2 beers. I haven't smoked pot in over 20 years now but I guarantee you that if I took 1 toke off a joint I would be messed up.

 

[hoodonit00]

I understand the effects that hard drugs have on their users. I also know that there is no drug that eliminates free will. Even if it did, the user would be responsible for having chosen to suspend their volition, and would still be fully accountable for their actions. Saying the drug caused the crimes exonerates the user.

I'm all for being held accountable for crimes but to say that drugs don't eliminate free will is absurd. Now I'm not talking about pot. But do you think a person on PCP or having a bad trip on acid is really in control of themselves. Hell my wife used to do some crazy ____ on Ambien that the next day would have no recollection of it happening.

 

[BadMoon]

I'm all for being held accountable for crimes but to say that drugs don't eliminate free will is absurd. Now I'm not talking about pot. But do you think a person on PCP or having a bad trip on acid is really in control of themselves. Hell my wife used to do some crazy ____ on Ambien that the next day would have no recollection of it happening.

Just look at what some have done taking Chantix to quit smoking.