Should U.S legalize Marijuana??

[vortexring 0]

Thats discombobulating.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Botellines 0]

The most addictive one is tobacco (even more than heroin) and the most damaging by itself is alcohol by far. Yet those are the legal ones.

[kallend 2,106]

Isn't it funny how the self-professed conservatives want to have a nanny state when it comes to something they don't like?

The government is NOT my nanny.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[micro 0]

Quote

The most addictive one is tobacco (even more than heroin) and the most damaging by itself is alcohol by far. Yet those are the legal ones.

And therein lies the duplicity of our govt.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

Isn't it funny how the self-professed conservatives want to have a nanny state when it comes to something they don't like?

The government is NOT my nanny.

That has GOT to be the lamest, most piss-poor attempt at an argument yet, John. Attack a group when you have NOTHING to rebutt with.

If you're attempting to address this to me, since you've made nanny comments to me several times recently, you've made an unwarranted assumption... that I don't like pot for one. I happen to love it. I just don't smoke it anymore, b/c I'm a responsible parent and citizen.

Given how incredibly stupid a vast plethora of people are in this world, I think it behooves the govt. to regulate substances that are harmful not only to people who would use/abuse/become dependent on, but who would also not have the brains to NOT harm those smart enough to NOT use them while out and about in society! And you don't have to have a PhD (perhaps it would be better to NOT have one!) to know one is much more likely to harm oneself and others while under the influence of mind altering chemicals than while sober.

The Govt. may not be your nanny John, but sometimes you argue like you NEED one.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[GTAVercetti 0]

I hate to say it micro, but your argument there about why drugs should be regulated works in EXACTLY the same way for guns. God I hate crossing two topics, but it is the truth:

-----------------------

I think it behooves the government to regulate guns that are harmful not only to people who could shoot themselves, but who would also not have the brains NOT to harm others while in and about society.

------------------------

The key is your word usage: regulate. Making them illegal is just the most severe form of that. Not many SERIOUS marijuana advocates want TOTAL freedom. They recognize the need for tax and control of the substance. Same as alcohol.

I really want to avoid the gun argument, but there it is.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[micro 0]

Quote

I hate to say it micro, but your argument there about why drugs should be regulated works in EXACTLY the same way for guns. God I hate crossing two topics, but it is the truth:

-----------------------

I think it behooves the government to regulate guns that are harmful not only to people who could shoot themselves, but who would also not have the brains NOT to harm others while in and about society.

------------------------

The key is your word usage: regulate. Making them illegal is just the most severe form of that. Not many SERIOUS marijuana advocates want TOTAL freedom. They recognize the need for tax and control of the substance. Same as alcohol.

I really want to avoid the gun argument, but there it is.

No Rob, it's not the same. MJ is a psychoactive substance that impairs the brain. Guns do not. There is a difference. A gun is a tool. MJ is not. See my previous posts.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[GTAVercetti 0]

The responsible person will not use EITHER in a manner where someone will be hurt.

On the other hand, the irresponsible, mental deficient, or incompetent can use either to harm themselves or others.

The problem is that you make that assumption that because something alters brain chemisty, it is more risky than a gun in the hands of an idiot.

I do not believe it is. And I believe that with government regulation and HARSH punishments for those who cause harm under the influence, there would not be an issue.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[micro 0]

Quote

The responsible person will not use EITHER in a manner where someone will be hurt.

On the other hand, the irresponsible, mental deficient, or incompetent can use either to harm themselves or others.

The problem is that you make that assumption that because something alters brain chemisty, it is more risky than a gun in the hands of an idiot.

It is not.

You have a very good point and one that I don't disagree with EXCEPT for the addictive nature of drugs. Guns are not addictive.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

The key is your word usage: regulate.

Regulators!!!!!

<--sings

LOVE the green field by the way.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Going off a bit here, but perhaps it may be worth considering that I've never came across anyone, who, having used cannabis fairly often, hadn't tried other illegal drugs. And for a lot of people this is the beginning of the 'end.'

I think this confuses causation with availability. If you're routinely scoring pot from a source, you can also get just about anything else.

And with half the country (? everyone in the Bay Area but me) smoking pot at least once, it's a rare person that skipped it on the way to the less healthy narcotics.

BTW, what is 'fairly often?' Is that like Sean Penn in Fast Times?

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

Guns are not addictive.

Dude, tell that to my neighbor who's like totally collected a million of them and thinks he's .

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[stayhigh 2]

Hey Jen it is already misdeamenor for carrying less then an O. I know coulple people just getting a ticket.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

The responsible person will not use EITHER in a manner where someone will be hurt.

On the other hand, the irresponsible, mental deficient, or incompetent can use either to harm themselves or others.

The problem is that you make that assumption that because something alters brain chemisty, it is more risky than a gun in the hands of an idiot.

It is not.

You have a very good point and one that I don't disagree with EXCEPT for the addictive nature of drugs. Guns are not addictive.

Well, see, you just brought that up. It was not in the message I responded to. You merely said that people under the influence cause problems.

So, let me go with this and then I must take my leave. Does the illegality of drugs cut down on addiction? Has it cut down on crime? On usage? Nope. People with addictive personalities find ways around laws to fill their needs.

I know people who have casually used "harder" and "more addictive" drugs for years. Not one is an addict. Not one has caused societal problems. On the other hand, I know quite a few that ABHOR drugs but are alcoholics and have cause all sorts of strife. Others are compulsive gamblers. Addiction comes in many forms. I don't think MJ is one of them..at least not physically.

The idea that addiction will go up because it is legal is not a valid one to me; short of destroying all drugs everywhere, people with addictive tendencies will find a way.

See you later.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

misdeamenor for carrying less then an O

It's a misdemeanor to have an O???

That's just crazy talk.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[stayhigh 2]

Less then an O, or 27.9gram then it is ticket, but if it is more than 28 g then it is called felony and you go to jail, and
what is all this gun talks man.. you can be major pussy and shoot gun from mile away but it takes guts to go up into someone's face and stab them, I highly recommend knives for guns program.
Key is stab and turn 90 degree and pull. Atleast thats what they tought me in basic combat training

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The responsible person will not use EITHER in a manner where someone will be hurt.

On the other hand, the irresponsible, mental deficient, or incompetent can use either to harm themselves or others.

The problem is that you make that assumption that because something alters brain chemisty, it is more risky than a gun in the hands of an idiot.

It is not.

You have a very good point and one that I don't disagree with EXCEPT for the addictive nature of drugs. Guns are not addictive.

Well, see, you just brought that up. It was not in the message I responded to. You merely said that people under the influence cause problems.

So, let me go with this and then I must take my leave. Does the illegality of drugs cut down on addiction? Has it cut down on crime? On usage? Nope. People with addictive personalities find ways around laws to fill their needs.

I know people who have casually used "harder" and "more addictive" drugs for years. Not one is an addict. Not one has caused societal problems. On the other hand, I know quite a few that ABHOR drugs but are alcoholics and have cause all sorts of strife. Others are compulsive gamblers. Addiction comes in many forms. I don't think MJ is one of them..at least not physically.

The idea that addiction will go up because it is legal is not a valid one to me; short of destroying all drugs everywhere, people with addictive tendencies will find a way.

See you later.

it may not have been directly in my post to you, but it was in my discussion w/ john.

one point... you don't have to have an addictive personality to become addicted to drugs. likewise, just b/c you have an addictive personality doesn't ipso facto mean you'll become addicted to drugs.
true, the illegality/legality of the matter may not be enough to keep addicts from using, but at this point, what's the alternative?

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[kelel01 1]

Not here. That's locally regulated.

[PLFXpert 0]

I was being ambiguous, silly.

Gosh!

It's no fun when you have to explain it. Obvoiusly you haven't spent much time in Bonfire. I'm notoriously ambiguous. It's a fun game I like to play. Winner takes all! (I always win.)

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

you can be major pussy and shoot gun from mile away but it takes guts to go up into someone's face and stab them,

You're funny.

I like you.



This thread is fun.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

I have an addictive personality...

And yet I manage to have a glass of wine or two daily and stop there; can't remember the last time I was drunk.

It's OK to have an addictive personality so long as you focus that energy into the right things. Those who do not have other issues that are the root of their problems. The addiction is just a physical symptom of such.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 3,064]

>Given how incredibly stupid a vast plethora of people are
>in this world, I think it behooves the govt. to regulate substances
> that are harmful not only to people who would use/abuse/become
> dependent on, but who would also not have the brains to NOT harm
> those smart enough to NOT use them while out and about in society!

Except it doesn't work. Perhaps something else might.

[Lindsey 0]

true, the illegality/legality of the matter may not be enough to keep addicts from using, but at this point, what's the alternative?

How about letting people, addicts or otherwise, work it out for themselves. Novel idea.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[micro 0]

Quote

>Given how incredibly stupid a vast plethora of people are
>in this world, I think it behooves the govt. to regulate substances
> that are harmful not only to people who would use/abuse/become
> dependent on, but who would also not have the brains to NOT harm
> those smart enough to NOT use them while out and about in society!

Except it doesn't work. Perhaps something else might.

Such as?

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[billvon 3,064]

>MJ is a psychoactive substance that impairs the brain. Guns do not.
> There is a difference. A gun is a tool. MJ is not. See my previous
> posts.

That's sort of a silly distinction.

Just sitting there, a gun doesn't impair you. Just sitting there, neither does marijuana.

If you use a gun on yourself, you may become impaired. If you use marijuana on yourself, you may become impaired. A gun will impair you a lot faster and a lot more permanently than pot will.

If you practice burning marijuana on a bonfire or something, you generally won't become impaired. If you practice with a gun at a range, you generally won't become impaired.

People who use guns foolishly are MORE likely to injure or kill themselves or others than people who use marijuana foolishly. So if your objective is to protect people from themselves, outlawing guns would probably work about as well (if not better) than outlawing marijuana. (As we've seen, such a prohibition never works very well to begin with, no matter what the topic.)