Legalizing Marijuana

[AquaAthena]

Within a few years Marijuana will be legal in every state......this battle was fought and won.

Yes, and isn't it all so interesting, yet expected, that we stifle cigarettes yet encourage marijuana. Just another, "go figure."

Whoa!

How are "we" encouraging marijuana??

By legalizing the use of it. Those who won't smoke it because it is illegal, will now have the right to light up. At the same time discouraging the use of smoking tobacco. It's just funny, to me..the irony.

 

[Zander]

Yes, and isn't it all so interesting, yet expected, that we stifle cigarettes yet encourage marijuana. Just another, "go figure."

Whoa!

How are "we" encouraging marijuana??

By legalizing the use of it. Those who won't smoke it because it is illegal, will now have the right to light up. At the same time discouraging the use of smoking tobacco. It's just funny, to me..the irony.

Cigarettes are gross.

 

[Montrovant]

Whoa!

How are "we" encouraging marijuana??

By legalizing the use of it. Those who won't smoke it because it is illegal, will now have the right to light up. At the same time discouraging the use of smoking tobacco. It's just funny, to me..the irony.

Cigarettes are gross.

Parmesan cheese is gross! I still have to smell it in Italian restaurants.

 

[FA_Q2]

We should stop making this war on plants. Whatever grows out of the ground is safe. Now shut up and drink your peach pit tea.

I think you're either crazy or a troll, Katz, but that was pretty damn funny.

I've never quite understood the whole 'it's a plant! It's safe!' argument.

I don't think peach seeds are actually all that dangerous, although maybe you get enough of the bad if you make a tea out of them!

Peach pits are a deadly poison similar to cyanide as is foxglove, belladonna, hydrangia, hyacinth, daffodils, larkspur, jasmine is fatal. The bark and leaves of cherry trees is exactly like cyanide. There are hundreds of plants that will kill you. This bs about it being just a plant is insane. Who comes up with this nonsense?

There is an incredible high as you die from toad slime. Maybe we should legalize toad licking (illegal in California) because it's just a frog.

Yes and no. Licking a frog should be legal because you are in control of your body and what goes into it. You want to lick a frog then go ahead. One less moron to procreate.

It has nothing to do with this assertion that 'it is just .....' because what it is or whether or not it is natural is utterly irrelevant. Freedom to do as you choose as long as you are not infringing on others rights is paramount here and THAT is why such things should be 100 percent legal. I can put opium in my body IF SOMEONE ELSE SAYS THAT IT IS OKAY and yet I am completely devoid of that choice myself. What kind of nanny state government is that? It is utterly asinine.

 

[YoungRepublican]

It never ceases to amaze me how fervant people can get about smoking a little weed. It isnt the weed that effects peoples lives, its the person. I know plenty of guys who smoke weed recreationally and will be graduating college in May, all of whom either have jobs in the financial sector, going to law or med school or doing somehting else of relative social acceptance. I also know plenty of guys I graduated high school with that started smoking the reef at a young age and graduated to harder stuff, nothing was going to stop them from being screw ups. If a person wants to toke up every now and then, why not let them, its no worse then getting drunk and its going to happen anyways. At least if we legalize it we will be preventing shaddy back alley drug transactions with pot that could be laced with some shit. Its safer smarter and gonna happen, nothing much you anti pot people can do about it.

 

[MikeK]

Within a few years Marijuana will be legal in every state......this battle was fought and won.

Yes, and isn't it all so interesting, yet expected, that we stifle cigarettes yet encourage marijuana. Just another, "go figure."

I don't think anyone has encouraged the use of marijuana but rather the legalization of it. The reason for this is marijuana prohibition is extremely counterproductive as well as extraordinarily wasteful and damaging to the social order.

But cigarette use is discouraged because, while marijuana is non-addictive and relatively benign, cigarettes are more addictive than heroin and are potentially lethal.

 

[PaulS1950]

Within a few years Marijuana will be legal in every state......this battle was fought and won.

Yes, and isn't it all so interesting, yet expected, that we stifle cigarettes yet encourage marijuana. Just another, "go figure."

I don't think anyone has encouraged the use of marijuana but rather the legalization of it. The reason for this is marijuana prohibition is extremely counterproductive as well as extraordinarily wasteful and damaging to the social order.

But cigarette use is discouraged because, while marijuana is non-addictive and relatively benign, cigarettes are more addictive than heroin and are potentially lethal.

Woah there bucko;
Cigarettes are not addictive - some people become reliant but not all. Cigarettes don't cause cancer - they may be a contributing factor but there are people (that I know, personally) who have never been exposed to cigarettes who have died of lung cancer and others (like my mother) who smoked from the time she was a teen until she was 85 and died of old age - no cancer, no pulmonary problems other than pneumonia caused by her throat allowing the liquids she was drinking to get into her lungs. I suppose that if a person smoked one cigarette after another for every waking moment they might die from carbon monoxide poisoning - as you might while standing around a camp fire that was very smoky but in the real world walking along a busy road for an hour is worse than smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.
If smoking caused cancer then all smokers would get cancer - doesn't happen.
If smoking caused cancer then those who never smoked would not get cancer - not true either.
You have been listening to too many commercials.

 

[Katzndogz]

Has there ever been a successful cuture in which there was protection for the impaired, subsidizing and encouraging more and more people to be impaired.

The end result is The Walking Dead.

 

[konradv]

Yes, and isn't it all so interesting, yet expected, that we stifle cigarettes yet encourage marijuana. Just another, "go figure."

I don't think anyone has encouraged the use of marijuana but rather the legalization of it. The reason for this is marijuana prohibition is extremely counterproductive as well as extraordinarily wasteful and damaging to the social order.

But cigarette use is discouraged because, while marijuana is non-addictive and relatively benign, cigarettes are more addictive than heroin and are potentially lethal.

Woah there bucko;
Cigarettes are not addictive - some people become reliant but not all. Cigarettes don't cause cancer - they may be a contributing factor but there are people (that I know, personally) who have never been exposed to cigarettes who have died of lung cancer and others (like my mother) who smoked from the time she was a teen until she was 85 and died of old age - no cancer, no pulmonary problems other than pneumonia caused by her throat allowing the liquids she was drinking to get into her lungs. I suppose that if a person smoked one cigarette after another for every waking moment they might die from carbon monoxide poisoning - as you might while standing around a camp fire that was very smoky but in the real world walking along a busy road for an hour is worse than smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.
If smoking caused cancer then all smokers would get cancer - doesn't happen.
If smoking caused cancer then those who never smoked would not get cancer - not true either.
You have been listening to too many commercials.

Sure cigarettes are addictive. Pointing out that some don't become addicted is not the standard. Some people don't become addicted to heroin either. The exception doesn't make the rule. It's also irrelevant that some non-smokers get lung cancer. There are other ways to get it, but that doesn't absolve cigarettes as a cause. Saying that for cigarettes to be considered a cause all must get cancer is totally untrue. Some people are particularly resistant, but that doesn't bear any relevance to those who aren't. Your logic is sorely lacking on this topic. You blame others for listening to commercials when it's obvious that you've been listening to propaganda that isn't backed up by scientific evidence.

 

[MikeK]

Woah there bucko;

Cigarettes are not addictive - some people become reliant but not all. Cigarettes don't cause cancer - they may be a contributing factor but there are people (that I know, personally) who have never been exposed to cigarettes who have died of lung cancer and others (like my mother) who smoked from the time she was a teen until she was 85 and died of old age - no cancer, no pulmonary problems other than pneumonia caused by her throat allowing the liquids she was drinking to get into her lungs. I suppose that if a person smoked one cigarette after another for every waking moment they might die from carbon monoxide poisoning - as you might while standing around a camp fire that was very smoky but in the real world walking along a busy road for an hour is worse than smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.

If smoking caused cancer then all smokers would get cancer - doesn't happen.

If smoking caused cancer then those who never smoked would not get cancer - not true either.

You have been listening to too many commercials.

You quite obviously are a long-term cigarette smoker and what you've had to say is a textbook example of an addict's rationalized denial. But for your own good I urge you to educate yourself on the reality that it has long been scientifically established that smoking cigarettes is more tenaciously addictive than heroin and does indeed cause cancer as well as several other serious pathologies.

Briefly stated, your pathetic denial occurs in defiance of the entire medical profession. You need to understand and accept that smoking cigarettes is addictive and has been proven to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths and serious illnesses every year!

CIGARETTE MAKER CONCEDES SMOKING CAN CAUSE CANCER - New York Times

 

[Wolfsister77]

Yes, and isn't it all so interesting, yet expected, that we stifle cigarettes yet encourage marijuana. Just another, "go figure."

I don't think anyone has encouraged the use of marijuana but rather the legalization of it. The reason for this is marijuana prohibition is extremely counterproductive as well as extraordinarily wasteful and damaging to the social order.

But cigarette use is discouraged because, while marijuana is non-addictive and relatively benign, cigarettes are more addictive than heroin and are potentially lethal.

Woah there bucko;
Cigarettes are not addictive - some people become reliant but not all. Cigarettes don't cause cancer - they may be a contributing factor but there are people (that I know, personally) who have never been exposed to cigarettes who have died of lung cancer and others (like my mother) who smoked from the time she was a teen until she was 85 and died of old age - no cancer, no pulmonary problems other than pneumonia caused by her throat allowing the liquids she was drinking to get into her lungs. I suppose that if a person smoked one cigarette after another for every waking moment they might die from carbon monoxide poisoning - as you might while standing around a camp fire that was very smoky but in the real world walking along a busy road for an hour is worse than smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.
If smoking caused cancer then all smokers would get cancer - doesn't happen.
If smoking caused cancer then those who never smoked would not get cancer - not true either.
You have been listening to too many commercials.

Sounds like someone is living in a world of denial and is addicted to cigarettes!! Smoking can cause cancer without every smoker getting it just like nonsmokers can get cancer from causes other than smoking. They can also get cancer from secondhand smoke. You make no sense.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Why just the sticky of the icky for legalization? Why not coke and heroin and meth and uppers and downers of all variety? I for one see no reason why those who turn their nose up at something should be able to dictate to the rest of society how they are to behave.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Why just the sticky of the icky for legalization? Why not coke and heroin and meth and uppers and downers of all variety? I for one see no reason why those who turn their nose up at something should be able to dictate to the rest of society how they are to behave.

We do it with every personal matter, it’s crazy. We dictate how people should live their lives from the marital spouse to when they want to have a child. Marijuana legislation is just another casualty in the far reaching arm of the U.S. Govt.

 

[FA_Q2]

Within a few years Marijuana will be legal in every state......this battle was fought and won.

Yes, and isn't it all so interesting, yet expected, that we stifle cigarettes yet encourage marijuana. Just another, "go figure."

I don't think anyone has encouraged the use of marijuana but rather the legalization of it. The reason for this is marijuana prohibition is extremely counterproductive as well as extraordinarily wasteful and damaging to the social order.

But cigarette use is discouraged because, while marijuana is non-addictive and relatively benign, cigarettes are more addictive than heroin and are potentially lethal.

More addictive then heroine is an asinine statement. It is one of the hardest to kick because it is everywhere but it is not more addictive then heroine, a drug that can kill you if you quit too quickly.

You are spot on with the statement " The reason for this is marijuana prohibition is extremely counterproductive as well as extraordinarily wasteful and damaging to the social order" though.

In all honesty, the contention that we are discouraging smoking but legalizing pot would be encouraging pot is a misnomer. We would not be encouraging pot any more than we would be encouraging cigarettes as they would (and are in some places) both legal. The reality is that we would be taking one step forward in treating them both the same with simple indifference. If you want to smoke, go ahead. If you want to toke, go ahead. Personally, I don't see any reason that the 2 substances should be treated any differently at all.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Yes, and isn't it all so interesting, yet expected, that we stifle cigarettes yet encourage marijuana. Just another, "go figure."

I don't think anyone has encouraged the use of marijuana but rather the legalization of it. The reason for this is marijuana prohibition is extremely counterproductive as well as extraordinarily wasteful and damaging to the social order.

But cigarette use is discouraged because, while marijuana is non-addictive and relatively benign, cigarettes are more addictive than heroin and are potentially lethal.

More addictive then heroine is an asinine statement. It is one of the hardest to kick because it is everywhere but it is not more addictive then heroine, a drug that can kill you if you quit too quickly.

You are spot on with the statement " The reason for this is marijuana prohibition is extremely counterproductive as well as extraordinarily wasteful and damaging to the social order" though.

In all honesty, the contention that we are discouraging smoking but legalizing pot would be encouraging pot is a misnomer. We would not be encouraging pot any more than we would be encouraging cigarettes as they would (and are in some places) both legal. The reality is that we would be taking one step forward in treating them both the same with simple indifference. If you want to smoke, go ahead. If you want to toke, go ahead. Personally, I don't see any reason that the 2 substances should be treated any differently at all.

So why not all drugs? If I wanna shoot up heroin and diminish my life that is my prerogative.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't think anyone has encouraged the use of marijuana but rather the legalization of it. The reason for this is marijuana prohibition is extremely counterproductive as well as extraordinarily wasteful and damaging to the social order.

But cigarette use is discouraged because, while marijuana is non-addictive and relatively benign, cigarettes are more addictive than heroin and are potentially lethal.

More addictive then heroine is an asinine statement. It is one of the hardest to kick because it is everywhere but it is not more addictive then heroine, a drug that can kill you if you quit too quickly.

You are spot on with the statement " The reason for this is marijuana prohibition is extremely counterproductive as well as extraordinarily wasteful and damaging to the social order" though.

In all honesty, the contention that we are discouraging smoking but legalizing pot would be encouraging pot is a misnomer. We would not be encouraging pot any more than we would be encouraging cigarettes as they would (and are in some places) both legal. The reality is that we would be taking one step forward in treating them both the same with simple indifference. If you want to smoke, go ahead. If you want to toke, go ahead. Personally, I don't see any reason that the 2 substances should be treated any differently at all.

So why not all drugs? If I wanna shoot up heroin and diminish my life that is my prerogative.

Before asking such question it is helpful to read the thread.

I advocated legalizing all drugs pages ago. Please keep up

 

[YoungRepublican]

I don't think anyone has encouraged the use of marijuana but rather the legalization of it. The reason for this is marijuana prohibition is extremely counterproductive as well as extraordinarily wasteful and damaging to the social order.

But cigarette use is discouraged because, while marijuana is non-addictive and relatively benign, cigarettes are more addictive than heroin and are potentially lethal.

More addictive then heroine is an asinine statement. It is one of the hardest to kick because it is everywhere but it is not more addictive then heroine, a drug that can kill you if you quit too quickly.

You are spot on with the statement " The reason for this is marijuana prohibition is extremely counterproductive as well as extraordinarily wasteful and damaging to the social order" though.

In all honesty, the contention that we are discouraging smoking but legalizing pot would be encouraging pot is a misnomer. We would not be encouraging pot any more than we would be encouraging cigarettes as they would (and are in some places) both legal. The reality is that we would be taking one step forward in treating them both the same with simple indifference. If you want to smoke, go ahead. If you want to toke, go ahead. Personally, I don't see any reason that the 2 substances should be treated any differently at all.

So why not all drugs? If I wanna shoot up heroin and diminish my life that is my prerogative.

Because shooting heroin can directly kill you, You cant kill yourslef by directly smoking pot..

 

[MikeK]

More addictive then heroine is an asinine statement. It is one of the hardest to kick because it is everywhere but it is not more addictive then heroine, a drug that can kill you if you quit too quickly.

[...]

Really?

Read the following article, then do some research so you'll know what you're talking about rather than thinking you do.

NICOTINE: HARDER TO KICK...THAN HEROIN - New York Times

 

[LibertyLemming]

More addictive then heroine is an asinine statement. It is one of the hardest to kick because it is everywhere but it is not more addictive then heroine, a drug that can kill you if you quit too quickly.

You are spot on with the statement " The reason for this is marijuana prohibition is extremely counterproductive as well as extraordinarily wasteful and damaging to the social order" though.

In all honesty, the contention that we are discouraging smoking but legalizing pot would be encouraging pot is a misnomer. We would not be encouraging pot any more than we would be encouraging cigarettes as they would (and are in some places) both legal. The reality is that we would be taking one step forward in treating them both the same with simple indifference. If you want to smoke, go ahead. If you want to toke, go ahead. Personally, I don't see any reason that the 2 substances should be treated any differently at all.

So why not all drugs? If I wanna shoot up heroin and diminish my life that is my prerogative.

Because shooting heroin can directly kill you, You cant kill yourslef by directly smoking pot..

My point is so what? Why are we protecting people from themselves? The only life worth saving is one that wants to be saved. This is the same argument people make for helmets and seatbelts. If I wanna ride my lawn mower without a helmet then go ingest heroin until I'm dancing with Mohammad in paradise that is my business not yours. I'm not hurting you or infringing on your freedom or property in any way.

 

[YoungRepublican]

So why not all drugs? If I wanna shoot up heroin and diminish my life that is my prerogative.

Because shooting heroin can directly kill you, You cant kill yourslef by directly smoking pot..

My point is so what? Why are we protecting people from themselves? The only life worth saving is one that wants to be saved. This is the same argument people make for helmets and seatbelts. If I wanna ride my lawn mower without a helmet then go ingest heroin until I'm dancing with Mohammad in paradise that is my business not yours. I'm not hurting you or infringing on your freedom or property in any way.

Until youre sitting in the ER from an overdose with no medical insurance because youve spent your last dime on one of the most addicting drugs man has ever made. Apples and oranges. your claim is similar to people who want to ban gay marriage and say "where do we stop? marriage with animals? Polygamy?" No we stop with same sex marriage because thats what reason dictates. Just like we stop with pot because thats what reason dictates