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??
It's just funny, to me..the irony.
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.
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.
Cigarettes are gross.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, and isn't it all so interesting, yet expected, that we stifle cigarettes yet encourage marijuana. Just another, "go figure."
But cigarette use is discouraged because, while marijuana is non-addictive and relatively benign, cigarettes are more addictive than heroin and are potentially lethal.
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.Yes, and isn't it all so interesting, yet expected, that we stifle cigarettes yet encourage marijuana. Just another, "go figure."
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.
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.
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.Yes, and isn't it all so interesting, yet expected, that we stifle cigarettes yet encourage marijuana. Just another, "go figure."
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.
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.
Yes, and isn't it all so interesting, yet expected, that we stifle cigarettes yet encourage marijuana. Just another, "go figure."
But cigarette use is discouraged because, while marijuana is non-addictive and relatively benign, cigarettes are more addictive than heroin and are potentially lethal.
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.Yes, and isn't it all so interesting, yet expected, that we stifle cigarettes yet encourage marijuana. Just another, "go figure."
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.
Really?
