Showing up for work under the influence will get you fired most places. The OP makes a false conclusion of a better economy.
Yeah, showing up drunk will get you fired too. But where in the article did he advocate that people show up to work under the influence of any recreational substance? That is a false argument. It is not a false conclusion. Marijuana prohibition has been costly in many aspects of our society not just the economy.
The problem with that argument is, it derives from a false premise.
I mean we could just as easily look at how much the prohibition to murder costs, but that's hardly the POINT.
The point being does society want to tolerate murder or let it run rampant?
Potheads then argue that marijauna is victimless but that is a narcissistic argument TO THE EXTREME.
Anyone living in Columbia or Mexico will tell you the trade HAS PLENTY OF VICTIMS.
The same people who will cry about letting illegal immigrants come into the country freely will take another toke and turn a blind eye to how many of them ARE KILLED so he can toke that blunt.
Domestic pot growing might cut into that blood shed on the American side.
BUT . .
Then I could go into the studies who have found smokers more likely to have mental illness, decreased intelligence, heightened emotions.
Any commodity designed to cause intoxication or a "buzz" as tokers call it, is going to cause effects on the brain.
Now you guys can believe that comes without consquences all you want. I don't buy it. Take a look at topspin!
I haven't met a pot smoker yet that didn't suffer some cognitive loss.
The smoker is always last to know it.
That's not victimless.
I also find it HIGHLY hypocritical that the same people FOR pot smoking are usually AGAINST cigarette smoking.
Anyone want to look at the cost to try and keep cigarettes out of the hands of people?
I don't see ANYONE complaining about that!
Taking the marijuana trade out of the hands of violent international narcotraffickers who kill people in South America and Mexico so Americans can get a buzz and putting it in the hands of regulated American corporations would prevent those people from getting killed. Or at the least, from America having a role or being a factor in their deaths.
People who take legal prescription drugs often end up having mental illness, decreased intelligence, heightened emotions. People who drink to excess too.
Hell, professional, semi-pro, even high school athletes often end up suffering mental illness and decreased intelligence as a result of sports injuries and head trauma. But you're not trying to outlaw football and boxing.
We don't make everything potentially bad for you illegal. Doing so is the definition of a nanny state, is antithetical to freedom and liberty, and diametrically opposed to conservatism and calls for small government.
Showing up for work under the influence will get you fired most places. The OP makes a false conclusion of a better economy.
Yeah, showing up drunk will get you fired too. But where in the article did he advocate that people show up to work under the influence of any recreational substance? That is a false argument. It is not a false conclusion. Marijuana prohibition has been costly in many aspects of our society not just the economy.
Industrial and motor vehicle accidents as a result of the law being repealed will have a large cost. You seem to feel all the users will become law abiding citizens as soon as the law is changed. All it will do is encourage use in all aspects of life, including work.
Put simply, no. Alcohol is not illegal, but driving under the influence of it is. NyQuil is not illegal, but driving under the influence of it is. Texting is not illegal, but driving while engaging in it is. The solution to the problem of an activity or substance's side effect on driving is to criminalize driving while under the influence or engaged in the activity, not to criminalize it period. We do this with everything else, because it makes sense, there's no reason the same doesn't apply to pot. Smoke it in the privacy of your own home, carry small amounts on your person, but don't be publicly intoxicated or operate a motor vehicle under its effects, just like alcohol or a variety of other legal substances.
That's all we need. This country is in deep shit as it is, so why the hell do we need to legalize another substance for people to fuck their head up with? What a moronic notion.
I have a better idea. Instead of making one more drug for people to scramble their brains with legal, how about we make a drug that's legal, ILLEGAL? I think we need to sober this country up more than we need to FUCK it up. People are stupid enough already in this country. Look who we have for a President.
That's all we need. This country is in deep shit as it is, so why the hell do we need to legalize another weapon for people to blow their head up with? What a moronic notion.
I have a better idea. Instead of making one more gun for people to explode their brains with legal, how about we make a gun that's legal, ILLEGAL? I think we need to saften this country up more than we need to FUCK it up. People are stupid enough already in this country. Look who we have for a President.
It's the same stupid argument.
Guns have the potential to be extremely dangerous. They're responsible for more than 10,000 deaths a year in America, compared to marijuana's 0 ever. However, when used responsibly by adults, they are not dangerous, so people are free to own them.
The government has no right to tell citizens what they can and cannot possess so long as that possession is not infringing on the rights of others. I thought that was called liberty. Isn't more personal freedom, individual responsibility, and less government intervention what conservatives say they believe in?
Your liberty enfirnges on mine, when you expect me to pick up the pieces of your liberty's downside, witch is virtually the whole use of the product. People that use your product tend to use other drugs and they typicaly don't do so in moderation.
Longterm physical health effects of marijuana smoke are fairly minimal and drastically less harmful than cigarette use or alcohol abuse, which are both legal. By your logic, if people shouldn't be allowed to engage in behavior that may harm their health and force you to pick up the tab in a semi-socialized health care system, then alcohol and cigarettes should be outlawed too. Not to mention fatty foods and various other more potent detrimental chemicals people have noted.
Studies find that the significant majority of people who use marijuana also use alcohol and no other illicit drugs. The percentage of marijuana users dwarfs the percentage of users of all other illicit substances, even combined. So it's factually incorrect to state that "People that use [marijuana] tend to use other drugs and they typically don't do so in moderation." Simply factually false.
The gubamint has a history of taking something good, works well that we all enjoy and fucking it all up. Then making you pay for it through taxation.wow your a clown, the gov is going to remove thc. good one
Don't get the government involved in your daily life any more than necessary.
I agree with this logic. What follows from it is that we should not get the government involved in dictating our personal consumption choices and they should leave themselves the hell out of our private lives, rather than say kicking in doors with weapons drawn to collect a few plants and send someone to jail for smoking them.
Last edited: