Stephen Joseph Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 In general: marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol, and is mostly harmless with the same side effects that smoking cigarettes have. The "moral" crusade is the only thing stopping it from being legalized. word.
Guest MikeSC Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 Except smoking cigarettes is being attacked constantly as being horrendous and deadly to others... -=Mike ...Supports legalization, but pro-legalizers need to see how insanely horrible their arguments are...
Carnival Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 In my limited experience with weed i think it's less harmfull than alcohol. Over a long period of time you become and idiot, alcohol does worse. I stopped smoking it because when i was high i felt dumb as hell and i hated it. As far as legalizing it, I don't know. It should have the same regualtions as alcohol. (can't drive after smoking) But i think that would be hard to enforce, damn near impossible to enforce so they won't legalize, and they probably shouldn't. The "it would make money for the government" arguement is pointless cuz they are making the money anyways on all the drugs they traffic in the US. So they don't care if it would "help the economy. Cus the CIA makes the money anyways.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 I really don't care if it's legal, but since it's not I give zero pity to pseudo-hippies that whine because they got busted for a dimebag...
Guest MikeSC Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 In my limited experience with weed i think it's less harmfull than alcohol. Over a long period of time you become and idiot, alcohol does worse. I stopped smoking it because when i was high i felt dumb as hell and i hated it. As far as legalizing it, I don't know. It should have the same regualtions as alcohol. (can't drive after smoking) But i think that would be hard to enforce, damn near impossible to enforce so they won't legalize, and they probably shouldn't. The "it would make money for the government" arguement is pointless cuz they are making the money anyways on all the drugs they traffic in the US. So they don't care if it would "help the economy. Cus the CIA makes the money anyways. Carnival, seriously, stop discussing the government. Your conspiracy theories would make Michael Moore cringe. -=Mike
Jingus Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 The "it would make money for the government" arguement is pointless cuz they are making the money anyways on all the drugs they traffic in the US. So they don't care if it would "help the economy. Cus the CIA makes the money anyways. Mike, don't rip this kid apart, the poor dumb sonufabitch just don't know no better.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 I stopped smoking it because when i was high i felt dumb as hell and i hated it. So what's your excuse now?...
Carnival Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 In my limited experience with weed i think it's less harmfull than alcohol. Over a long period of time you become and idiot, alcohol does worse. I stopped smoking it because when i was high i felt dumb as hell and i hated it. As far as legalizing it, I don't know. It should have the same regualtions as alcohol. (can't drive after smoking) But i think that would be hard to enforce, damn near impossible to enforce so they won't legalize, and they probably shouldn't. The "it would make money for the government" arguement is pointless cuz they are making the money anyways on all the drugs they traffic in the US. So they don't care if it would "help the economy. Cus the CIA makes the money anyways. Carnival, seriously, stop discussing the government. Your conspiracy theories would make Michael Moore cringe. -=Mike well thats why i think they won't legalize it. That stuff aside. I think it would make more business and make more money. But it would be too tough to regulate. So they shouldn't legalize it.
Guest MikeSC Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 You are aware it costs the gov't A LOT of money to take care of the assorted burn-outs who get addicted to drugs, right? -=Mike
The Czech Republic Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 Let's get some CE conceptual continuity going: If we make the government our drug dealer, make them sell it through the local DMVs. That much procedural bullshit will quell even the most dedicated of stoners. It'll be great! I can see it now: sales of Phish CDs plummeting!
Guest MikeSC Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 ANYTHING that kills the sales of the Ashlee Simpson-level-of-talent Phish is a good thing. -=Mike
Carnival Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 You are aware it costs the gov't A LOT of money to take care of the assorted burn-outs who get addicted to drugs, right? -=Mike so your saying it would be a bad idea to legalize it, cuz it'll just lead to more burnouts? I can agree with that.
PLAGIARISM! Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 I'd like to see MS given to those who don't want it legalised. Then we'll see. Might be fun. (Assuming MS means reefer) All I did was lay on a water bed and go "Oh man I'm so on drugs right now (I think...)" Multiple Sclerosis.
Guest MikeSC Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 You are aware it costs the gov't A LOT of money to take care of the assorted burn-outs who get addicted to drugs, right? -=Mike so your saying it would be a bad idea to legalize it, cuz it'll just lead to more burnouts? I can agree with that. No, I'm all for legalizing it once the nanny state is dismantled because I don't give two fucks if some assorted morons want to ruin their lives. As long as they don't do it in front of me, I don't care. -=Mike
The Czech Republic Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 Are you saying with all the medical advances we've made, there's no treatment for Multiple Sclerosis that doesn't make you think you "totally understand the REAL meaning of Dark Side of the Moon"?
kkktookmybabyaway Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 Multiple Sclerosis. Okie Doke -- I thought it was some code word you kids used nowadays. And instead of MS, just wish cancer upon people...
Carnival Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 You are aware it costs the gov't A LOT of money to take care of the assorted burn-outs who get addicted to drugs, right? -=Mike so your saying it would be a bad idea to legalize it, cuz it'll just lead to more burnouts? I can agree with that. No, I'm all for legalizing it once the nanny state is dismantled because I don't give two fucks if some assorted morons want to ruin their lives. As long as they don't do it in front of me, I don't care. -=Mike Well I agree with that. But i think if it was legalized it would have 10x the abuse rate as alcohol. So it's not a good idea in my eyes.
I like Forums Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 Well first of all, what Carnival was saying about not being able to control smoking and driving. There is law in Manitoba that if a cop thinks you are driving under the influence they are allowed to ask for a urine test on the spot. And just a question: Do you really think that if weed was legalized that it would increase the amount of drug dependant users? First off there would still be liquor which most people seem to be more comfortable using. Also there would probably be a large number of people who just plain wouldn't like the sensation that comes with weed, it is very different than cigarettes and alcohol. There would probably be an increase in occasional or first time users but the actual number of people who would use drugs very regularily would probably stay relatively the same. People just have personalities that get them addicted not so much drugs themselves. If its not weed its going to be something else. So I think the excuse that there will be more dependant "burn outs" is not true. Plus anybody who has to go into rehab for weed is a pussy, it's not even a physically addictive drug. Heroin, Oxycontin, those are drugs to go to rehab for.
Crimson Platypus Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 The whole "if marijuana was legal abuse would increase by 10x" arguement is flat out wrong. Does anyone who thinks this think that people who want to smoke pot don't do so because it's illegal? If you (whoever) really think that you are seriously deluded.
tominator89 Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 To become a burnout or not should be the individual's choice. And really, although they become a burden to society, I don't mind having a little less competition in professional job markets. The only other thing I'd like to add is that these people should not be allowed to breed so that natural selection could "weed" out the bums.
Guest MikeSC Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 The whole "if marijuana was legal abuse would increase by 10x" arguement is flat out wrong. Does anyone who thinks this think that people who want to smoke pot don't do so because it's illegal? If you (whoever) really think that you are seriously deluded. No, the ridiculous argument is to assume that legalization won't increase usage considerably. It not being legal makes it more difficult to find than alcohol or cigarettes. -=Mike
Carnival Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 The only other thing I'd like to add is that these people should not be allowed to breed so that natural selection could "weed" out the bums. Great pun. I fall into the category of "not liking the sensation" so i can see that happening. But with that law, is there a way that they can test urine to prove you are under the influence at the time. Somebody getting pulled over and busted when he smoked weed yesterday would be shitty. Thats true that weed isn't physically addictive, so maybe "abusers" wouldn't be such a problem. If they did legalize it, the amount of users would increase greatly, which could lead to "abusers" and ya people do smoke it now if they want it bad enough. But with it being legal that increases the exposure of the drug to more people on a daily basis. So It's obvious that the amount of people using or abusing would increase. edit: thank you mike
Special K Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 They DO have sobriety tests, you know. If you're under the legal limit and you fail a sobriety test, it doesn't matter.
Carnival Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 They DO have sobriety tests, you know. If you're under the legal limit and you fail a sobriety test, it doesn't matter. u mean the field tests? line walk the line...and touch your nose...that kinda stuff. The weed test would have to be different though. Like "Don't laugh at this racist joke!"
sfaJack Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 But that's unfair because it's hard enough not to laugh at a racist joke when you're NOT high.
Crimson Platypus Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 The whole "if marijuana was legal abuse would increase by 10x" arguement is flat out wrong. Does anyone who thinks this think that people who want to smoke pot don't do so because it's illegal? If you (whoever) really think that you are seriously deluded. No, the ridiculous argument is to assume that legalization won't increase usage considerably. It not being legal makes it more difficult to find than alcohol or cigarettes. -=Mike Apparently you don't buy much weed. It's not hard to get.
Carnival Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 The whole "if marijuana was legal abuse would increase by 10x" arguement is flat out wrong. Does anyone who thinks this think that people who want to smoke pot don't do so because it's illegal? If you (whoever) really think that you are seriously deluded. No, the ridiculous argument is to assume that legalization won't increase usage considerably. It not being legal makes it more difficult to find than alcohol or cigarettes. -=Mike Apparently you don't buy much weed. It's not hard to get. But there is no arguement it's harder to find than cigs or beer.
I like Forums Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 Just because weed is more available doesn't mean that there will be more addicted people across the nation. If it isn't weed they are addicted to its likely it would be alcohol instead. Some people need to self medicate, reguardless of what is available they will become addicted to something. At least weed is the lesser of many evils. Does it matter that more people are addicted to weed? The same number of addicts will remain the same, just different products.
Guest MikeSC Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 The whole "if marijuana was legal abuse would increase by 10x" arguement is flat out wrong. Does anyone who thinks this think that people who want to smoke pot don't do so because it's illegal? If you (whoever) really think that you are seriously deluded. No, the ridiculous argument is to assume that legalization won't increase usage considerably. It not being legal makes it more difficult to find than alcohol or cigarettes. Apparently you don't buy much weed. It's not hard to get. It's significantly harder to get than alcohol or tobacco. Just because weed is more available doesn't mean that there will be more addicted people across the nation. If it isn't weed they are addicted to its likely it would be alcohol instead. Some people need to self medicate, reguardless of what is available they will become addicted to something. At least weed is the lesser of many evils. Does it matter that more people are addicted to weed? The same number of addicts will remain the same, just different products. Says who? Giving more options for intoxication and addiction is not going to come without a price. -=Mike
Carnival Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 Beer drinkers wouldn't just magically decide to switch to weed. They would smoke weed and drink beer. Thus weed users +1.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now