OFFICIAL Flame people about pot smoking thread

Everything gives you cancer. Pot smokers probably have a greater chance of dying of a heart attack from eating mcDonalds than from cancer, though. Unless they smoke an ounce a day for 20 years like Bob Marley. Most smokers do it recreationally, like having a few beers on the weekend. I don't see anything wrong with that. As long as it's not infringing on MY rights, I could care less what anyone else does to their own body.

I know Lawyers, Nurses, a few doctors, many other professionals, and a PHD chemist with an IQ of 180 who smokes pot. It does not affect his memory in the slightest. However, for every sucess story I have, there is also a failure. Some of the smokers I know still have dead end jobs or no job at all, still smoke every day and still can't remember when they last paid their rent, or how. You can't always blame the drug, it has more to do with the type of person and his personality to begin with. Those with psycological 'issues' are still going to have them regardless of drug use, so you can't blame drugs for their shortcomings. Correlation does not always imply causation.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Everything gives you cancer..[/quote]

True, but I wouldn't want to stick my face in asbestos. Whatever floats peoples' boats I guess.

One of the reasons I quit was that my short-term and long-term memory and vocabulary were suffering, as well as personal relationships. I also smoked cigarettes as well, but I personally didn't think all that extra damage was worth it. Of course, YMMV.

I've said this before, but my brother is the same age as some of you CAGers and I want to protect his dumbass from that. Him I don't want to get f*d up obviously, but as for people on here, I really don't care if I convince anyone or not. I'm not really trying to. 'It's just pot', I know, but every decision you make affects your life in some way, and you might not see it until its too late.
 
Damn, I'm away from these boards for one day, and all of a sudden a Dawn- of-the-Dead style virus about smoking pot goes on a rampage. WTF is wrong with you guys?!
 
personally, ive dabbled in the mary jane, and i will say that there is no reason it should be illegal. i believe in a few years, pot will be legalized.
 
[quote name='MorbidAngel4Life']personally, ive dabbled in the mary jane, and i will say that there is no reason it should be illegal. i believe in a few years, pot will be legalized.[/quote]
It will never be legalized, maybe decriminalized but the government would have to admit that it's not as bad as they said it was...and you know they can't do that.
I can say for the person who drove high only being high 3 times and driving is not smart buddy.
Put a drunk in a car and a longtime smoker in the other, see which one crashes.
Not that you should drive under the influence of anything which is stupid in the first place. It's all about personal responsibility.
The Truth is legal substances cause way more damage in the world than marijuana, but the world is a messed up place.
And it's not addicting for me, I take 3-4 day breaks from it sometime without problem. I'm done arguing over the matter, I'm biased because I smoke but even if I quit I'll still feel the same way.
 
I love drugs and alcohol. You are not cool unless you consume drugs and alcohol.

I like to call them "evolution catalysts" because they speed up natural selection.
 
[quote name='stonedgamer']And it's not addicting for me, I take 3-4 day breaks from it sometime without problem.[/quote]

Emphasis mine. 'Nuff said.
 
Well, I went to church the other day, and afterwards, the priest and I got stoned, so I asked the stoned priest, I said "Pastor, is this weed smoking wrong?" He looked me straight in my bloodshot eyes and said "Son, I'm hungry, lets get some Taco Bell"

There ya have it, straight from the conduit of the big man upstairs.



/oh its not like I won't see most of you in hell anyway
 
[quote name='XboxMaster']Yeah, I don't wanna state my opinion anymore, doesn't seems it's gonna get to through some thick skulls around here. You're right, this forums is MOSTLY about games. If you haven't noticed (which it seems you haven't), this is the Cheap Ass Lifestyle & Off Topic forum. OFF TOPIC. That means that it is a forum to talk about things that are not related to the main purpose of the rest of the threads.[/quote]

Yeah, I know, and I DID notice what forum we were in. I was just pointing out that I'm glad that we have a specific thread in which people can talk about this shit instead of it infecting other off-topic posts that would otherwise be enjoyable. I certainly meant no offence... :roll:
 
I agree. Though it seems some take personal enjoyment running around in their underwear and a cape destroying supposingly harmless and good threads by bringing up things completely off-topic from the thread and therefore, destroying it. (Example: see daphatty's thread on women getting smacked) Seemingly harmless, good topic starter and story, but then the Off-topic man strikes again and destroys another good thread. So again, I don't even know if this thread will have much purpose because some people *AHEM* like to ruin other people's threads. Why, why why, would they EVER post in the correct forum like they're supposed to?! It's unheard!

Though there seems to be quite a debate on this going around.. and for that, sneakyp, I applaud and salute you.
 
[quote name='magilacudy']Cheapy should hook us up with some cheapass deals on heroin, crack, meth, PCP, trees, bushes, goofballs, whatever kids are using these days. Save if you buy in bulk! :shock:[/quote]

Thats the best post I have ever seen of yours. Got my vote!
 
I guess with my name being bandied about as much as it was in this thread, I at least owe it to everyone to at least make an appearence.

While it is even off topic here, I'd just like to state as a matter of public record that I have never, ever hated anyone posting here. I don't hate or discriminate. I'm an equal opportunity offender.
 
i feel that since i started this thread, i should actually state my opinion.

i think all drugs AND alcohol AND even smoking is wrong and SHOULD be illegal. but that would never work. black market would prevent it. since that wont work, then everything should be made legal, but have high axes and make the penalties for abuse (underage, dwi etc.) extreme so as to instill fear and make the country some money. i personally dont do any of these, nor will i ever (except drink). but as long as it doesn t harm anyone else, one should be allowed to do it.
 
i am the same way as stonedgamer, but havent done it in about 2 or 3 months, and im not addicted. im not dieing for it. i havent even thought about it.
 
i'm here to try to get my friend to stop doing the weed. his name is anth0ny, and you all have probably seen him around here at one time or another (jin thread). well yeah, i personally know him, and he isnt that bright of a kid, i'm pretty confident its because of all that smoking. so yeah anthony, stop. if not for me, do it for brad pitt.
images.jpg
 
damn i remember the good ole' days, when "godhatesjustyou" use to supply me with the weed, that punk got me addicted.....hes a bad influence kids
 
[quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']I agree. Though it seems some take personal enjoyment running around in their underwear and a cape destroying supposingly harmless and good threads by bringing up things completely off-topic from the thread and therefore, destroying it. (Example: see daphatty's thread on women getting smacked) Seemingly harmless, good topic starter and story, but then the Off-topic man strikes again and destroys another good thread. So again, I don't even know if this thread will have much purpose because some people *AHEM* like to ruin other people's threads. [/quote]

Who is this underwearing capped freak? Couldn't tell.
 
Well since this topic won't die, here are some old but interesting statistics.
The rate is obviously higher by now
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm
Now I'm not saying it's right but even if weed did make you stupid like so many people claim, at least it doesn't cause such death.
So why doesn't everyone hate on tylenol?
Because it's legal
 
[quote name='stonedgamer']Well since this topic won't die, here are some old but interesting statistics.
The rate is obviously higher by now
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm
Now I'm not saying it's right but even if weed did make you stupid like so many people claim, at least it doesn't cause such death.
So why doesn't everyone hate on tylenol?
Because it's legal[/quote]

True, but legality implies a wider userbase as well as government controls.
On top of that, the more people that use a specific chemical/drug to alter thier bodies chemistry, the more like it is for adverse reactions to be noticable and reported.



(Average 1990-1994) According to the US Centers for Disease Control, from the beginning of 1990 through 1994 "2,153,700 deaths (1,393,200 men and 760-400 women; total annual average: 430,700 deaths) were attributed to smoking (19.5% of all deaths)." The CDC notes that "Cigarette smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States."

According to the federal National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, in 1996 an estimated 110,640 people in the US died due to alcohol.

Source: "Number of deaths and age-adjusted death rates per 100,000 population for categories of alcohol-related (A-R) mortality, United States and States, 1979-96," National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, from the web at http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/databases/armort01.txt, last accessed Feb. 12, 2001, citing Alcohol Epidemiologic Data System, Saadatmand, F., Stinson, FS, Grant, BF, and Dufour, MC, "Surveillance Report #52: Liver Mortality in the United States, 1970-96" (Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Division of Biometry and Epidemiology, December 1999).


These problems are not really about the nature of said products, but more about the widespread use and abuse of said products. Since there are no actual numbers for marijuana use, these are nothing more than a red herring offered by a pro-pot site. In essence, these people are saying "but these are bad" as a way to push thier agenda.

(Average 1982-1998): According to Canadian researchers, approximately 32,000 hospitalized patients (and possibly as many as 106,000) in the USA die each year because of adverse reactions to their prescribed medications.

Source: Lazarou, J, Pomeranz, BH, Corey, PN, "Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies," Journal of the American Medical Association (Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 1998), 1998;279:1200-1205, also letters column, "Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients," JAMA (Chicago, IL: AMA, 1998), Nov. 25, 1998, Vol. 280, No. 20, from the web at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v280n20/ffull/jlt1125-1.html, last accessed Feb. 12, 2001.

Again, through widespread use and proper reporting, it becomes obvious that even seemingly benign drugs can have drastic and adverse effects on some portion of the population.


(2001): The US Centers for Disease Control reports that in 2001, there were a total of 30,622 deaths from suicide in the US.

Source: Arias, Elizabeth, Ph.D.; Robert N. Anderson, Ph.D.; Hsiang-Ching Kung, Ph.D.; Sherry L. Murphy, B.S.; Kenneth D. Kochanek, M.A.; Division of Vital Statistics, "Deaths: Final Data for 2001," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, Sept. 18, 2003), Table C, p. 8, from the web at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_03.pdf, last accessed Jan. 27, 2004.


This point would be completely torn apart by anyone who's ever written a brief or taken a formal debate class. This is yet another red herring... nothing can be extrapolated about the use and effects of a drug from the national suicide rate from 3 years ago.


(2001): The US Centers for Disease Control reports that in 2001, there were a total of 20,308 deaths from homicide in the US.

Source: Arias, Elizabeth, Ph.D.; Robert N. Anderson, Ph.D.; Hsiang-Ching Kung, Ph.D.; Sherry L. Murphy, B.S.; Kenneth D. Kochanek, M.A.; Division of Vital Statistics, "Deaths: Final Data for 2001," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, Sept. 18, 2003), Table C, p. 8, from the web at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_03.pdf, last accessed Jan. 27, 2004.


Yet again, another major red herring. Murders have absolutely nothing to do with drugs in any way, with the exception of the violence and deaths inherent to the drug trade.


(2001): "In 2001 a total of 21,683 persons died of drug-induced causes in the United States (tables 21 and 22). The category "drug-induced causes" includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of drugs (legal and illegal use), but also poisoning from medically prescribed and other drugs. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to drug use. Also excluded are newborn deaths due to mother’s drug use. (For a list of drug-induced causes, see "Technical Notes.") In 2001 the age-adjusted death rate for drug-induced causes for males was 2 times the rate for females. The age-adjusted rate for the black population was 1.2 times the rate for the white population (table 21). The rate for the non-Hispanic white population was 1.5 times that of the Hispanic population, and the rate for the non-Hispanic black population was 1.8 times that of the Hispanic population (table 22)." Source: Arias, Elizabeth, Ph.D.; Robert N. Anderson, Ph.D.; Hsiang-Ching Kung, Ph.D.; Sherry L. Murphy, B.S.; Kenneth D. Kochanek, M.A.; Division of Vital Statistics, "Deaths: Final Data for 2001," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, Sept. 18, 2003), p. 11, from the web at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_03.pdf, last accessed Jan. 27, 2004.

Nice of this website to completely negelect the technical notes.
Yet again, just because some drugs by thier natures have interactions, or people have allergies to them doesn't mean they are inherently unsafel, or that marijuana is safer.

(2000): "Illicit drug use is associated with suicide, homicide, motor-vehicle injury, HIV infection, pneumonia, violence, mental illness, and hepatitis. An estimated 3 million individuals in the United States have serious drug problems. Several studies have reported an undercount of the number of deaths attributed to drugs by vital statistics; however, improved medical treatments have reduced mortality from many diseases associated with illicit drug use. In keeping with the report by McGinnis and Foege, we included deaths caused indirectly by illicit drug use in this category. We used attributable fractions to compute the number of deaths due to illicit drug use. Overall, we estimate that illicit drug use resulted in approximately 17000 deaths in 2000, a reduction of 3000 deaths from the 1990 report."

Source: Mokdad, Ali H., PhD, James S. Marks, MD, MPH, Donna F. Stroup, PhD, MSc, Julie L. Gerberding, MD, MPH, "Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000," Journal of the American Medical Association, March 10, 2004, Vol. 291, No. 10, p. 1242.



An estimated 3 million individuals in the United States have serious drug problems. Overall, we estimate that illicit drug use resulted in approximately 17000 deaths in 2000, a reduction of 3000 deaths from the 1990 report."


That's a whole lot of estimation going on there. For all we know, they could have easily jockied those numbers to make it look like America was winning the "War on Drugs". On top of that, the crime related numbers they get will likely be skewed before they even touch them, since I doubt crime scene reports have a checkbox that says "Drug Related".



(1996): "Each year, use of NSAIDs (Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) accounts for an estimated 7,600 deaths and 76,000 hospitalizations in the United States." (NSAIDs include aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, ketoprofen, and tiaprofenic acid.)

Source: Robyn Tamblyn, PhD; Laeora Berkson, MD, MHPE, FRCPC; W. Dale Jauphinee, MD, FRCPC; David Gayton, MD, PhD, FRCPC; Roland Grad, MD, MSc; Allen Huang, MD, FRCPC; Lisa Isaac, PhD; Peter McLeod, MD, FRCPC; and Linda Snell, MD, MHPE, FRCPC, "Unnecessary Prescribing of NSAIDs and the Management of NSAID-Related Gastropathy in Medical Practice," Annals of Internal Medicine (Washington, DC: American College of Physicians, 1997), September 15, 1997, 127:429-438, from the web at http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15sep97/nsaid.htm, last accessed Feb. 14, 2001, citing Fries, JF, "Assessing and understanding patient risk," Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology Supplement, 1992;92:21-4.


This is bad data. Asprin has known allergies, is used EXPONENTIALLY more than just about every illict drug, and is readily available over the counter... meaning that there will be a great many people that self-medicate rather that seeking a health care professional. That's just a recipe for disaster. Just because asprin and other NSAIDs have saftey issues doesn't make marijuana any more or less safe.

An exhaustive search of the literature finds no credible reports of deaths induced by marijuana. The US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) records instances of drug mentions in medical examiners' reports, and though marijuana is mentioned, it is usually in combination with alcohol or other drugs. Marijuana alone has not been shown to cause an overdose death.

Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), available on the web at http://www.samhsa.gov/; also see Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A. Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999), available on the web at http://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/; and US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition" (Docket #86-22), September 6, 1988, p. 57.


"Illicit drug use is associated with suicide, homicide, motor-vehicle injury, HIV infection, pneumonia, violence, mental illness, and hepatitis". Funny how this source completely neglects these causes of death realted to it's use.. despite the fact that the AMA sees them as viable.
 
I'm not a pothead but I would be too lazy to pick apart all those stats and type it up report-style like JSweeney did. Good job... quite an interesting read.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']
Summarized: All of these facts do not make marijuana any safer.[/quote]

True dat, but does it make it any more harmful?

/devil's advocate
 
www.erowid.org is also a good site for REAL facts about drugs
I'm not some pro-drug loser, I hate alcohol with a passion seeing lots people lose a lot to alcohol.
1:3 wreckless drivers tested positive for marijuana
Well if that were true marijuana stays in the system for a few weeks.
That doesn't necessarily mean the user was high at the time, of course they don't mention that.
And nobody has posted a site with facts they just seem to be getting there information probably from what they think.
In conclusion...eating marijuana is safer than taking a tylenol...I rest my case
 
hay yall anti-pot dudes. You all like LOTR right???

merrypipe.jpg



They fucking... smoked out all the time in there. And another thing, by the time all of thoes bad smoking related thingies start hurting the majority of the people on this bord, (UNDER 30) thanks to all of thoes wonderfull docters will have cures and preventions readaly avalable to ANYONE.

WAIT.. Gotta take a hit.

so anyway weed isn't for everybody but if you are worried about it killing u you shouldn't be.
 
[quote name='drunken_master'].And another thing, by the time all of thoes bad smoking related thingies start hurting the majority of the people on this bord, (UNDER 30) thanks to all of thoes wonderfull docters will have cures and preventions readaly avalable to ANYONE.
[/quote]

That's true! I mean, cigarettes have been around a lot longer than marijuana and those wonderful doctors already gave us cures for lung cancer and emphysema.

Oh wait, they haven't? Never mind.
 
Why is this topic still going?
Evidence shows marijuana is no more harmful or addictive than alcohol. Legalization would make marijuana use safer, and it would reduce costs incurred in arrests, trials, and incarcerations of many non-violent criminals. It would also allow for new revenue from a tax like that on cigarettes. This is both a budget issue, and a common sense issue.
 
[quote name='stonedgamer']Why is this topic still going?
Evidence shows marijuana is no more harmful or addictive than alcohol. Legalization would make marijuana use safer, and it would reduce costs incurred in arrests, trials, and incarcerations of many non-violent criminals. It would also allow for new revenue from a tax like that on cigarettes. This is both a budget issue, and a common sense issue.[/quote]

I had no idea the solution was this simple! Thanks for clearing it up. And your screen name assures me that you are making an unbiased opinion on the subject.
 
Actually, I doubt he came to that conclusion on his own...seeing as how he pulled that enlightened viewpoint directly from one of my own posts.

This really is a tiresome issue. Pot-heads will stay pot-heads because it's so damn hard to educate them, and the educated will never come to the pot-head's way of thinking because we know better.

Though, I find it mildly to my amusement that a certain unnamed pot-head was so ready to embrace an ideology expressed by one of the aforementioned educated folks, perhaps mistaking it as his own.
 
[quote name='stonedgamer']www.erowid.org is also a good site for REAL facts about drugs
I'm not some pro-drug loser, I hate alcohol with a passion seeing lots people lose a lot to alcohol.
1:3 wreckless drivers tested positive for marijuana
Well if that were true marijuana stays in the system for a few weeks.
That doesn't necessarily mean the user was high at the time, of course they don't mention that.
And nobody has posted a site with facts they just seem to be getting there information probably from what they think.
In conclusion...eating marijuana is safer than taking a tylenol...I rest my case[/quote]

That's a false contention. It's use is nowhere near the level of the use of NSIADs, and to compare the occurances of negative side effects is ludicrous at best. It is not safer than asprin, especially now. Asprin has carefully mandated rules and regulations covering everything to dosage size and quality.

Don't even bother with the medical arguments.. they really aren't all that compelling. Every pro source has at least two con sources that are just as compelling. If you're going to try arguing it at all, you should look into personal liberty issues and the like. They'd reasonate quite well right now, with so many people getting paranoid over "big government".

And nobody has posted a site with facts they just seem to be getting there information probably from what they think.

That's because your statements and the information you provided was mostly tenous at best, and easily discredited by showing simple logical falacies in it using "common knowledge". There are many other qood sites, and plausible arguments. You just didn't happent to use them.

1:3 wreckless drivers tested positive for marijuana
Well if that were true marijuana stays in the system for a few weeks.
That doesn't necessarily mean the user was high at the time, of course they don't mention that.

That isn't an argument you want to make, as it detracts from your point more than it helps establish it. That data shows a pattern of recklessness and perhaps even diminished mental faculty and capacity.. not exactly a huge boon to your argument.

In conclusion...eating marijuana is safer than taking a tylenol...I rest my case

A non-regulated psychoactive drug is less harmful than a strictly regulated, widely used and accepted drug. Do you realize how foolish that sounds? With nothing regulating the amount of psychoactive chemicals in it, you take a risk every time you use it. Not to mention that since you circumvent legal channels to aquire it, you can't say with any certainty that it won't be laced with harder drugs, pesticides, etc.

Rest your case? You've proven very little, and most of your assertions are tenous at best. It'd be foolhardy to do that. Unless of course, you just heard that on one of the lawyer related TV shows and thought it would be clever to say.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='stonedgamer']www.erowid.org is also a good site for REAL facts about drugs
I'm not some pro-drug loser, I hate alcohol with a passion seeing lots people lose a lot to alcohol.
1:3 wreckless drivers tested positive for marijuana
Well if that were true marijuana stays in the system for a few weeks.
That doesn't necessarily mean the user was high at the time, of course they don't mention that.
And nobody has posted a site with facts they just seem to be getting there information probably from what they think.
In conclusion...eating marijuana is safer than taking a tylenol...I rest my case[/quote]

That's a false contention. It's use is nowhere near the level of the use of NSIADs, and to compare the occurances of negative side effects is ludicrous at best. It is not safer than asprin, especially now. Asprin has carefully mandated rules and regulations covering everything to dosage size and quality.

Don't even bother with the medical arguments.. they really aren't all that compelling. Ever pro source has at least two con sources that are just as compelling. If you're going to try arguing it at all, you should look into personal liberty issues and the like. They'd reasonate quite well right now, with so many people getting paranoid over "big government".

And nobody has posted a site with facts they just seem to be getting there information probably from what they think.

That's because your statements and the information you provided was mostly tenous at best, and easily discredited by showing simple logical falacies in it using "common knowledge". There are many other qood sites, and plausible arguments. You just didn't happent to use them.

1:3 wreckless drivers tested positive for marijuana
Well if that were true marijuana stays in the system for a few weeks.
That doesn't necessarily mean the user was high at the time, of course they don't mention that.

That isn't an argument you want to make, as it detracts from your point more than it helps establish it. That data shows a pattern of recklessness and perhaps even diminished mental faculty and capacity.. not exactly a huge boon to your argument.

In conclusion...eating marijuana is safer than taking a tylenol...I rest my case

A non-regulated psychoactive drug is less harmful than a strictly regulated, widely used and accepted drug. Do you realize how foolish that sounds? With nothing regulating the amount of psychoactive chemicals in it, you take a risk every time you use it. Not to mention that since you circumvent legal channels to aquire it, you can't say with any certainty that it won't be laced with harder drugs, pesticides, etc.

Rest your case? You've proven very little, and most of your assertions are tenous at best. It'd be foolhardy to do that. Unless of course, you just heard that on one of the lawyer related TV shows and thought it would be clever to say.[/quote]

I just want to say how much I appreciate how well you lay out your case in any disagreement you get into on these boards. You go point by point and and make a clear argument. I don't always agree with you, but I really appreciate the way you handle it.
 
[quote name='stonedgamer']Why is this topic still going?
Evidence shows marijuana is no more harmful or addictive than alcohol. Legalization would make marijuana use safer, and it would reduce costs incurred in arrests, trials, and incarcerations of many non-violent criminals. It would also allow for new revenue from a tax like that on cigarettes. This is both a budget issue, and a common sense issue.[/quote]

I hate when people state this, because they think it makes them sound intelligent and reasonable. It still neglects multiple facets of the argument.
Specification without implementation is almost worthless.
How would it be regulated? Taxed?

If it's a purely budgetary issue, will the future costs of the negative effects be comletely defrayed by the tax gain? Or will there be another burden tossed directly into the laps of taxpayers? It may be no more harmful than alcohol, but there sure to seem to be a lot of AA meetings around.
Is there any infrastructure in place that could handle a similar situation? Would the taxes be enough to cover that?

Cigarettes are still smuggled to avoid higher taxes. It would be almost folly to suggest that the same thing wouldn't be happening. The idea of getting rid of the black market on it vastly overstated at best. There would still be noviolent offenders being jailed, just as there are with cigarettes and alchol.

Common Sense? Parents and the government can't control the underage use of alchol and cigarettes. You think throwing the floodgates open on this will make enforcement of those and this any easier?

I could care less what grown adults do in the privacy of thier own home, provided that it doesn't harm others, but legalization would not so easily cure all the harms and ills that you think criminalization has created.
 
I can understand what you're saying, Jsweeney... but the fact is, if somebody wants to smoke pot, they don't not do it because it's "illegal". That won't stop them if they've come to that decision by then, for most anyways. It certainly seems the most sensible thing to do to legalize it, yet once you do people will be smuggling left and right once there's an age limit (probably will be.. 18 i'm guessing) and there's so many people smoking already that it's already out of control. So if they legalize it, A. The government will have to admit that they were wrong, and its not a deadly biohazard as they described it at first (which will never happen) and B. Marijuana usage will triple, quadruple, everyone will be doing it that thought it was dangerous before because if it's "good enough to be legal" then it can't be harmful, right? But that's how the American mind works, really. It's better to keep it illegal because its spinning out of control as it is. Even though, yes, it's not a deadly biohazardous waste. Though kids,
Don't shoot heroin
And that's all i have to say...
 
[quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']I can understand what you're saying, Jsweeney... but the fact is, if somebody wants to smoke pot, they don't not do it because it's "illegal". That won't stop them if they've come to that decision by then, for most anyways. It certainly seems the most sensible thing to do to legalize it, yet once you do people will be smuggling left and right once there's an age limit (probably will be.. 18 i'm guessing) and there's so many people smoking already that it's already out of control. So if they legalize it, A. The government will have to admit that they were wrong, and its not a deadly biohazard as they described it at first (which will never happen) and B. Marijuana usage will triple, quadruple, everyone will be doing it that thought it was dangerous before because if it's "good enough to be legal" then it can't be harmful, right? But that's how the American mind works, really. It's better to keep it illegal because its spinning out of control as it is. Even though, yes, it's not a deadly biohazardous waste. Though kids,
Don't shoot heroin
And that's all i have to say...[/quote]

Uhhh, in response to deadly biowaste, and if something is legal then it's not "that deadly"....Cigarette's have always been legal. Do i even have to finish my arguement?
 
bread's done
Back
Top